1   ie   v/xospeJs 

oi 

1             w  ana 

Luke 

'  '  I     .'    ■.I'M'"     '  '  ."     .. 


OSEPH   HORNER,   M.  A. 


tintt 


Rtitt 


™h 


y 

\,  ...    «r  f  ,  «       -. ►  «f" 

(*     MAR   9  1908      *; 


Division    B52.5^S 


r 


THE  GOSPELS  OF 
MATTHEW  AND  LUKE 

A  Vindication  of 
Their  Agreement  and  Accuracy  as  to  Certain 
Dates  and  Order  of  Events 

Especially  of 


The  Marginal  Chronology 

The  Fifteenth  Year  of  Tiberius  Caesar 

The  Case  of  Cyrenius 

The  Visit  of  the  Magi 

The  Flight  into  Egypt  and  Return 

Notes  of  time — from  the  Birth  to  the  Crucifixion  of  Christ 


Also  a  Tentative  Theory  of 
THE  BAPTISM  FOR  THE  DEAD 


BY 


Rev.  Joseph  Horner,  M.  A.,  D.  D.,  LL.  D. 

Author  of  Daniel  Authenticated,  &c. 

Member  of  the  Society  of  Biblical  Archaeology 

London,  England 


Copyright,  1907 

BY 

Joseph  Horner 


PRES8    OF 

Pittsburgh  Printing  Company 


The  incentive  to  the  preparation  of  the  following  treatise 
is,  perhaps,  sufficiently  indicated  in  its  first  paragraph,  and 
needs,  therefore,  no  further  notice.  It  is  the  result  of  the  pa- 
tient and  persistent  study  of  problems,  one  of  which,  in  the 
line  of  investigation  hitherto  followed  has  been  found  to  be 
most  perplexing  and  affording,  but  little  encouragement  for 
the  realization  of  a  satisfactory  solution. 

The  "Commentatio"  of  A.  W.  Zumpt,  though  hailed  as 
having  come  more  nearly  to  a  solution  than  that  of  previous 
or  even  subsequent  writers,  has  failed  to  have  satisfactorily 
removed  the  difficulties  in  establishing  the  accuracy  of  St. 
Luke,  and  is  certainly  to  some  extent  in  error  in  its  list  and 
dates  of  Governors  of  Syria  for  the  period  covered  by  the  in- 
vestigation, and  in  placing  therein,  wholly  unauthorized,  the 
names  of  Cyrenius  and  the  dishonored  traitor,  Lollius. 

How  difficult  appeared  the  case  of  Cyrenius  to  the  schol- 
arly W.  M.  Ramsay,  M.  A.,  D.  C.  L.,  on  the  assumption  of  his 
having  had  a  term  as  ruler  of  Syria  in  the  closing  year  of 
Herod's  reign  and  also  the  later  term  mentioned  by  Luke 
and  described  by  Josephus,  including  the  period  from  A.  D. 
5  or  6  to  11,  can  be  seen  by  the  effort  made  by  so  able  a 
writer,  so  patient  an  investigator;  the  possessor  of  such  a 
wealth  of  material  as  was  utilized  in  the  preparation  of  his 
treatise  entitled,  "Was  Christ  born  in  Bethlehem?  A  Study 
on  the  Credibility  of  Luke,"  yet  the  difficulties  were  not  less- 
ened by  him. 

From  this  book  there  will  be  found,  in  these  subsequent 
pages,  many  quotations  which  it  is  hoped  are  treated  with 
the  fairness  and'  the  respect  due  to  so  worthy  and  so  fresh 
a  contribution  to  the  literature  of  this  subject  and  to  its  emi- 
nent and  conservative  author. 

It  may  not  be  useless  now  to  name  certain  contributions 
by  the  writer  to  the  Methodist  Review  (Methodist  Book  Con- 
cern, New  York,  U.  S.  A.)  which  are  somewhat  germane  to 
the  purposes  of  this  treatise. 

In  1872,  with  reference  to  Renan's  Life  of  Christ,  was 


4  Foreword. 

contributed  an  article  entitled,  "The  Birthplace  of  Jesus  and 
the  Chronology  of  the  Infancy;"  in  1875,  to  find  its  geographi- 
cal location  and  account  for  Matthew's  quotation  from  Jere- 
miah, a  paper  entitled,  "The  Ramah  of  Samuel  and  Rachel's 
Lament;"  a  series  of  chronologico-historical  articles  from  the 
standpoint  or  basis  that  the  biblical  and  Assyrian  chronolo- 
gies are  both  substantially  accurate  and  the  exhibition  of  their 
agreement  or  harmonization  is  simply  a  matter  of  interpreta- 
tion; in  1889,  concerning  the  reign  of  Shalmanezer;  in  1893, 
concerning  the  reign  of  Hezekiah:  in  1894,  "Pul  or  Porus, 
Jareb,  Tiglath-pilezer."  These  articles  are  original  contribu- 
tions which,  if  written  at  this  date,  would  need  some  modifi- 
cations as  a  result  of  the  latter  exhumations  in  Mesopotamia, 
but  are  on  the  right  basis  for  investigation.  It  may  also  be 
of  service  to  name  the  book  by  the  writer  entitled,  "Daniel, 
Darius  the  Median  and  Cyrus  the  Great,"  an  authentication 
of  Daniel's  book,  an  identification  of  Darius  the  Median  and 
modifications  of  the  story  of  Cyrus  the  Great.  In  this  book 
is  to  be  found  important  matter  which  can  be  found  in  its 
form  and  application  nowhere  else. 

I  have  ventured  to  append  to  this  present  treatise  the 
part  of  an  exposition  of  St.  Paul's  15th  chapter  of  First  Cor- 
inthians pertaining  to  the  "Baptizing  for  the  Dead"  as  con- 
taining an  interpretation  which  may  be  of  service  as  against 
the  interpretation  and  practice  of  the  "Church  of  the  Latter 
Day  Saints." 

With  these  words,  the  author  commits  this,  his  second 
venture  in  book  publishing,  to  the  general  public,  thankful 
for  its  completion  and  trusting  that  the  same  Providence 
which  has  kept  its  author  enthusiastically  at  this  kind  of  work 
and  in  it  has  given  him  the  true  luxury  of  the  best  years  of 
his  life,  may,  out  of  his  various  publications  and  ministerial 
labor,  cause  somewhat  of  profit  to  accrue  to  those  who  have 
received  and  shall  receive  them  and  be  helpful  in  meeting 
some  of  the  tendencies  toward  the  disintegration  of  the  fun- 
damentals of  the  Kingdom  of  Christ— "The  Kingdom  not  of 
this  World." 

West  Park,  Allegheny,  Pa. 


The  Gospels  of  Matthew 
and  Luke 


A  publisher  of  reference  bibles  was  asked  by  a 
correspondent  why  the  date  of  John's  Baptismal 
ministry  and  that  of  the  baptism  of  Jesus  are  in  the 
marginal  reference  column  put  at  A.  D.  27,  and  yet 
the  same  margin  dates  the  beginning  of  the  minis- 
try of  Jesus  at  A.  D.  31  and  the  crucifixion  at  A.  D. 
33,  this  making  what  the  correspondent  calls  a 
"jump"  of  four  years.  The  matter  was  submitted 
to  the  writer  for  an  answer. 

A  Correction  of  the  Marginal  Dates  of  Christ's 
Ministry  and  Crucifixion 

It  must  be  ^aid  in  justice  to  the  publishers,  that 
their  correspondent  is  not  quite  right  in  his  repre- 
sentation of  the  "margin".  For  the  first  appear- 
ance and  preaching  of  John  are  therein  given  as 
A.  D.  26.  That  date  and  2j  for  Christ's  baptism 
are  most  generally  accepted  as  best  authenticated. 
The  apparent  "jump"  is  occasioned  by  an  unnoted 
change  in  the  basis  of  the  chronological  notation. 
The  first  dates  were  strictly  in  accord  with  A.  D., 
but  the  later  dates  are  based  upon,  and  give  the  year 
of  his  life  through  which  he  was  then  passing,  be- 
ginning with  his  thirty-first  year. 


6  The  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke. 

Thus  on  December  25,  A.  U.  C.  (year  of  the 
founding  of  Rome),  779,  A.  D.  26,  Jesus  had  com- 
pleted thirty  years  of  his  life,  (was  30  years  old), 
and  on  December  26th  began  his  thirty-first  year. 
As  his  baptism  did  not  occur  until  some  months  later, 
and  the  year  in  our  count  ending  with  December,  it 
came  in  A.  U.  C.  780,  A.  D.  27,  and  as  no  Passover 
is  named  in  this  year,  it  seems  certain  that  it  was 
later  than  April  of  that  year  when  John  was  baptiz- 
ing the  multitude,  being  as  stated  in  the  thirty-first 
year  of  his  life.  For  the  birth  of  Christ  occurred 
in  A.  U.  C.  749,  which  corresponds  with  B.  C.  (Be- 
fore Christ's  birth)  the  fifth  year,  which  series  end- 
ed with  A.  U.  C.  753,  and  was  followed  by  754,  the 
same  being  the  first  year  of  A.  D.,  that  date  being 
four  years  later  than  the  true  date  of  Christ's  birth. 
On  December  25,  A.  U.  C.  781,  A.  D.  28,  Jesus 
was  thirty-two  years  old,  and  on  December  26th  be- 
gan his  thirty-third  year.  During  this  year  he  at- 
tended the  Passover.  On  December  25th.  A.  U.  C. 
782,  A.  D.  29,  Jesus  was  thirty-three  years  old,  and 
this  year  also  he  attended  the  Passover.  On  Decem- 
ber 26th  he  began  his  thirty-fourth  year  and  con- 
tinued his  ministry  among  the  people  until  the 
month  of  April,  A.  U.  C.  783,  A.  D.  30.  Attend- 
ing the  Passover  he  was  arrested,  and  was  crucified 
on  Friday,  "the  great  day  of  the  Feast,"  which  that 
year  fell  on  the  15th  day  of  Nisan,  our  April,  after 
completing  a  life  of  about  33^5  years.  Had  the 
compiler  of  the  marginal  chronology  noted  that  he 
had  taken  for  the  three  years  of  his  ministry  the  age 


The  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke.         J 

of  our  Lord  (Anno  Aetatis  Domini  (A.  Aet.  D.) 
when  he  used  31  (i.  e.  31st),  the  addition  of  the 
three  years  as  marked  by  the  three  subsequent  Pass- 
overs would  have  made  all  plain.  Yet  there  is  some 
excuse  for  the  compiler's  not  specifically  noting  the 
change  from  A.  D.  to  A.  Aet.  D.,  in  the  fact  that 
the  marginal  note  in  Luke  2,  2.,  had  stated  that  the 
year  of  Christ's  birth  was  the  fifth,  i.  e.,  four  years 
before  "the  account  called  Anno  Domini  began;"  a 
difference  of  four  years  being  thus  indicated.  Simi- 
larly the  vision  of  Zacharias  in  the  Temple  was 
dated  the  "sixth"  year  before  A.  D.  began,  (that 
is  counting  from  Nisan,  but  the  5th  year  counting 
from  our  January.)  A  very  common  source  of 
confusion  arises  from  overlooking  the  distinctive 
difference  of  the  ordinals,  i.  e.,  1st,  2nd,  etc.,  and 
cardinals,  i.  e.,  1,  2,  3,  etc.,  that  is  from  "first"  to 
fifth  there  are  four,  not  five  years. 

The  most  general  consensus  of  opinion  or  author- 
ity seems  to  accept  as  the  date  of  our  Lord's  birth- 
day in  (say  December  25th),  A.  U.  C.  749,  B.  C.  5, 
which  we  may  call  A.  Aet.  D.  1st  year.  As  John 
was  six  months  old  when  Jesus  was  born,  and  as 
Josephus  states  that  the  priestly  course  of  Abiah,  to 
which  his  father  belonged,  ministered  in  the  Temple 
in  July  and  October,  it  follows  that  the  baptist  was 
born  late  in  July  (say  25th)  A.  U.  C.  749,  B.  C. 
5th.  As  the  usual  age  for  entering  upon  the  priest- 
ly or  Levitical  functions  or  the  duties  of  a  public 
teacher  seems  to  have  been  thirty  years,  it  was  in 
perfect  accord  with  this  usage  that  Luke,  after  hav- 


8  The  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke. 

ing  given  an  account  of  his  baptismal  consecration 
and  related  events  in  continuation  of  his  further 
purpose,  should  note  the  fact  that  "Jesus  himself" 
having  thus  been  inducted  into  his  office  by  a  recog- 
nized authority,  was  likewise  of  the  age  of  thirty 
years,  as  was  required  by  law  or  usage,  that  as  fur- 
ther confirmatory  of  his  right  to  exercise  this  auth- 
ority in  his  ministry,  carefully  guarding  against  the 
supposition  of  the  fatherhood  of  Joseph,  he  should 
retrace  his  genealogy,  being  the  "second  Adam," 
from  his  advent  as  "the  Son  of  David,"  in  the  Cara- 
vanserai of  Chimham  in  Ramah,  which  is  Bethle- 
hem— or  nigh  unto  it — to  Eden's  first  Adam; 
"which"  Adam,  like  to  Jesus,  "was  the  son  of  God." 
(Luke  3,  23-28).  Only  of  this  son  of  God,  and  of 
the  one  woman,  his  wife — these  two,  sinless  at  their 
advent  upon  this  earth,  could  it  be  said  that  "male 
and  female,"  by  the  direct  interposition  of  Almighty 
God  "created  he  them,"  until  the  sinless  second 
Adam,  by  the  direct  interposition  of  the  same  God, 
was  added  to  their  number  completing  thus  a  trinity 
concerning  all  of  whom  it  could  be  said  that  "in  his 
own  image,  male  and  female  created  he  them." 

This  early  or  primitive  record  as  to  the  earthly 
advent  of  sinless  mankind  is  in  full  accord  with  the 
record  of  these  two  evangelists,  and  the  three  inde- 
pendent records  confirm  and  fulfil  the  prophetic  in- 
terpretation of  the  first  woman,  that  in  the  prom- 
ise concerning  her  "seed,"  or  offspring  was  included 
the  incarnation  of  Deity,  which  was  accomplished 
in  the  sinlessly  miraculous  conception  and  birth  of 


The  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke.         9 

one  at  the  advent  of  whom  Mary  might  have  exul- 
tantly cried  as  did  Eve:  "I  have  gotten  the  man, 
to-wit  Jehovah." 

In  following  the  story  of  our  Lord's  ministry  it 
occurred  to  me  that  exact  justice  had  not  been  hith- 
erto done  to  Luke's  singular  exactitude  in  the  use 
of  certain  Greek  words  or  expressions.  As  a  result 
of  this  failure  as  to  a  verbal  form  or  derivative, 
more  or  less  uncertainty  colors  the  efforts  to  fix  up- 
on the  Roman  date  to  which  the  following  refers : 
viz :  Luke  3,  1,  etc.,  which  in  our  version  reads  thus : 
"In  the  fifteenth  year  of  the  reign  (riye/xovuxs) 
of  Tiberius  Caesar,  Pontius  Pilate  being  governor 
( i7y e/AovevWo?)  of  Judea,  the  word  of  God  came 
unto  John,  the  son  of  Zacharias  in  the  wilderness" 
.  .  .  etc.  Interpreters  on  the  one  hand  have  assumed 
that  this  date  must  be  counted  as  referring  to  the 
reign  of  Tiberius  as  Emperor  and  successor  of  the 
dead  Caesar  Augustus,  late  Emperor,  while  others 
have  referred  it  to  the  period  previous  to  his  sole 
reign  as  Emperor,  but  by  neither  does  there  seem  to 
be  suggested  a 'Satisfactory  reason  for  selecting  this 
form  of  expression — and  this  particular  year  from 
which  as  a  date  to  count. 

The   True   Date  of  the   Fifteenth  Year  of 

Tiberius  Caesar  fixed  and  the 

Form  Accounted  for 

As  apparently  intended  to  be  determinative  of  the 
seeming  uncertainty,  at  least  in  greater  part,  is  the 


io        The  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke. 

fact  that  Luke  does  not  unequivocally  state  that 
this  "word  of  God"  came  to  John  in  the  "reign"  of 
"Tiberius  Caesar"  The  word  used  is  K rjyeiwvm* 
which  in  the  New  Testament  occurs  here  only.  It 
is  a  derivative  from  the  word  used  in  the  same  verse 
as  descriptive  of  those  who,  for  the  most  part,  held 
a  position  subordinate  to  a  superior  in  authority; 
and  in  the  classics  is  also  used  of  commanders  of 
armies  or  leaders  of  military  expeditions.  That  Ti- 
berius was  not  then  Emperor  is  distinctly  suggested 
by  his  title,  "Tiberius  Caesar,"  his  title  when  after 
the  death  of  Augustus  he  ascended  the  throne  be- 
ing, "Imperator  Caesar  Augustus,"  Augustus  being 
the  distinguishing  mark  of  the  supreme  ruler  of  the 
Roman  Realm. 

From  these  considerations  it  would  seem  clearly 
to  appear  that  Luke  did  not  refer  to  the  Imperator- 
ship  of  Tiberius,  but  to  the  commandership  of  the 
armies,  and  the  governorship  of  the  provinces,  with 
the  latter  of  which  he  seems  to  have  been  first  in- 
vested at  the  date  referred  to.  It  is  also  for  our  pur- 
pose important  to  note  the  fact,  that  prior  to  765, 
Tiberius  when  referred  to  in  the  consular  tables  is 
named  simply  Tiberius,  or  Tiberius  Claudius  Nero, 
or  Nero  Claudius,  nor  does  Germanicus  appear  with 
the  title  "Caesar"  until  his  consulship,  A.  U.  C.  765. 
It  was,  doubtless  conferred  upon  both  at  the  same 
time  in  that  year,  since  it  was  at  this  time,  appar- 
ently, that  Augustus  settled  the  succession  to  the 
imperial  throne,  by  designating  Tiberius  as  his  im- 
mediate successor,  and  requiring  Tiberius  to  adopt 


The  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke.        n 

Germanicus  and  make  him  his  successor.  By  this 
arrangement  both  being  recognized  as  heirs  to  the 
imperial  throne,  seem  to  have  thereby  been  entitled 
to  be  called  Caesar. 

Returning  now  to  Luke's  chronological  statement 
we  may  satisfactorily  verify  its  historical  accuracy. 

It  is  plain  that  if  Jesus  was  born  near  the  close 
of  A.  U.  C.  749,  he  would  complete  thirty  years  of 
his  actual  life  near  the  close  of  A.  U.  C.  779,  and  the 
next  day  enter  upon  his  thirty-first  year.  Counting 
back  from  779  to  the  fifteenth  year  brings  us  to 
A.  U.  C.  765.  This  is  the  year  when  Germanicus 
Caesar  was  Consul,  and  when  Tiberius  Caesar  re- 
turned from  his  command  in  Germany,  and  when  he 
was  accorded  a  gracious  welcome,  and  a  magnificent 
triumphal  ovation  and  procession  through  the 
streets  of  the  imperial  city,  thus  marking  this  year 
765  as  epochal,  the  most  glorious  and  impressive 
and  resultful  in  the  life  of  Tiberius,  and  therefore 
the  least  likely  to  be  forgotten  of  any  year  of  that 
age  of  Rome,  and  therefore  a  date  of  certainty  from 
which  to  count,  and  thereby  make  accurate  record 
of  the  time  of  the  occurrence  of  subsequent  events. 
It  was  then,  as  herein  suggested,  that  the  succession 
was  definitely  arranged  and  the  rule  of  Tiberius 
Caesar  as  sharing  the  imperial  throne  was  made  ab- 
solute, and  therefore  the  statement  of  Luke  1,  de- 
scribing the  rule  as  an  *  rtye/xovuL"  has  a  singular 
exactness.  It  was  this  passion  for  precision  and 
certainty  that,  doubtless,  under  Divine  inspiration, 
led  Luke  to  fix  upon  a  date,  epochal,  widely  known, 


12        The  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke. 

unforgettable,  of  easy  verification,  as  was  the  begin- 
ning or  advent  of  the  Tiberian  Era,  by  his  scenic 
triumphal  march,  and  succession  to  copartnership 
with  Augustus  the  supreme ;  thus  embalming  in  im- 
perishable history  this  advent  as  an  established 
datum  from  which  counting  to  determinately  fix  up- 
on the  year  in  which  was  heard  the  "voice"  of  a 
herald  in  Judea,  officially  proclaiming  the  advent  of 
one  who  visibly  on  this  earth  founded  a  kingdom 
which  "is  not  a  kingdom  of  this  world,"  and  was 
sharer  with  his  Father  of  an  imperium,  which  in- 
cludes all  realms  and  dominates  all  authorities. 


PART   1. 

The  Account  of  the  Enrollment  or  Taxation  of 

the  Empire  Ordered  by  Augustus  and  the 

Relation  of  Cyrenius   Therein 

I  venture  now  to  suggest  that  the  same  exactness 
will  be  found  in  his  statement  of  the  taxation  or  en- 
rollment or  registration,  ordered  by  Augustus,  and 
the  relation  of  Cyrenius  thereto. 

But  before  entering  upon  a  somewhat  critical 
scrutiny  of  the  statement  of  Luke  concerning  this 
decree  and  the  enrollment  or  taxation,  our  purpose 
of  arriving  at  a  definite  conclusion  as  to  the  mat- 
ters in  controversy  may  be  profitably  subserved  by 
some  preliminary  considerations  as  to  the  conditions 
and  relations  then  existing. 


The  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke.        13 

The  then  Existing  Conditions  of  Judea,  and  of 
Herod  when  the  Order  came  from  Augustus 
The  order  was  sent  to  Herod  at  a  time  peculiarly 
unfavorable  to  its  being  carried  into  effect.  Herod 
was  himself  at  the  time  suffering  under  a  most 
loathsome  ailment,  which  eventuated  in  his  death 
a  short  time  after  the  decree  reached  him.  He  was 
also,  in  the  midst  of  a  most  distressing  and  very- 
serious  disagreement  with  his  family.  To  this  may 
be  added  the  outbreak  of  sedition  and  turbulence  of 
the  populace  at  Jerusalem  and  its  environs,  so  that 
it  is  improbable  that  he  would  hastily  press  to  im- 
mediate completion  this  especially  offensive  imperial 
command.  He  certainly  would  not  dare  to  forbid 
the  publication  of  the  decree,  or  refuse  to  make 
known  its  provisions,  but  might  easily  find  an  excuse 
for  delay,  satisfactory  to  Augustus,  with  whom  he 
was  at  this  very  time  in  especially  great  favor  and 
the  object  of  his  penitent  complaisance;  his  imperial 
master  having  with  noble  frankness  confessed  his 
error  and  the  injustice  of  his  course  of  treatment  of 
the  Jewish  King.  This  state  of  reconciliation  and 
favor  continued  until  the  death  of  Herod,  which  oc- 
curred not  later  than  the  first  week  in  the  April  sub- 
sequent to  the  birth  of  the  Christ.  Meantime  the 
law-abiding  people  would  prepare  to  obey  and 
gather,  after  the  Jewish  manner,  at  the  places  of 
their  several  ancestral  allotments.  As  Judea  was 
as  yet  a  kingdom,  having  its  own  executive  ruler 
and  its  own  laws,  and  not  being  a  mere  province  of 
the  empire,  nor  at  all  under  the  jurisdiction  of  any 


14        The  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke. 

of  the  presidents  or  governors  of  any  of  the  prov- 
inces of  the  Empire,  the  carrying  into  effect  of  this 
order  was  vested  in  the  King,  and  would  come  under 
Jewish  precedents,  law  or  customs;  nor  is  it  at  all 
likely  that  during  Herod's  lifetime  this  duty  would 
devolve  upon  a  governor  or  ruler  of  Syria;  since 
Judea  was  not  in  Herod's  time  an  appanage  of  the 
province  of  Syria,  nor  had  the  Governors  of  Syria 
any  control  of,  or  authority  in  Judea.  On  invita- 
tion of  Herod  they  took  some  part  in  the  contro- 
versies of  Herod  with  his  children  and  other  rela- 
tives; Caesar  having  ordered  or  permitted  Herod 
"to  get  an  assembly  together,  and  to  appoint  some 
place  near  Berytus,  which,"  said  Augustus  in  his 
advice,  "is  a  city  belonging  to  the  Romans,"  (there- 
fore not  in  Judea),  "and  to  take  the  presidents  of 
Syria,  and  Archelaus,  king  of  Cappadocia,  and  as 
many  as  he  thought  to  be  illustrious  for  their  friend- 
ship for  him,  and  determine  what  should  be  done  by 
their  approbation.  These  were  the  words  of  Cae- 
sar that  he  gave  to  him."     (Jos.  Ant.  16,  II,  §i.) 

It  may  be  noted  as  a  significant  fact  that  the  ad- 
visory committee  did  not  meet  on  Jewish  territory, 
but  as  directed  by  Augustus,  for  the  specific  reason 
given  in  the  "advice"  that  it  was  a  Roman  City,  in 
this  way  avoiding  any  infringement  upon  Herod's 
domain,  or  interference  with  his  royal  prerogatives. 

It  is  also  evident  that  no  tax  had  been  levied  upon 
the  estates  of  the  people  under  the  decree  of  Augus- 
tus when  Archelaus  was  acting  as  King  by  virtue 
of  Herod's  will,  awaiting  the  pleasure  of  Augustus 


The  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke.        15 

for  his  confirmation;  nor  later,  while  Ethnarch; 
since  none  of  the  turbulent  or  seditious  asked  for  a 
release  from  any  tax  or  assessment  upon  their 
estates,  or  even  in  the  nature  of  poll  tax,  but  only 
that  he  would  take  away  those  taxes  which  had  been 
laid  upon  what  was  publicly  sold  and  bought.  (Jos. 
17,  8,  4.)  No  authority  whatever  seems  to  have 
been  exercised  over  Judea,  by  the  presidents  or  gov- 
ernors of  Syria  until  after  the  death  of  Herod ;  and 
then  only  during  the  interregnum,  by  the  invitation 
of  Archelaus,  induced  by  seditions  and  disorders, 
which  as  acting  ruler  he  was  unable  to  repress.  So 
when  Archelaus  immediately  after  Herod's  death, 
was  starting  for  Rome,  he  at  the  earnest  request  of 
Ptolemy  sent  for  Varus,  President  of  Syria,  to  aid 
in  suppressing  sedition  and  disorder;  and  when  he 
left  for  Antioch,  Sabinus,  just  out  from  his  consul- 
ate, a  favorite  of  Augustus  and  his  steward  of  Syrian 
affairs,  met  Varus  and  Archelaus  at  Caesarea,  as 
he  was  making  haste  into  Judea,  to  preserve  Herod's 
effects,  having  to  take  charge  of  the  proceeds  of 
Herod's  will  to  Augustus:  and  when  restraint  was 
removed  by  the  departure  of  Varus,  he  seized  all  he 
could  of  Herod's  wealth  and  seized  also  the  palace, 
which  caused  greater  confusion  and  rebellion.  (Jos. 
War;  B.  2,  2,  2.     Ant.  17,  9,  2,  3.) 

During  Herod's  last  sickness,  some  three  months 
perhaps  before  his  death  a  sedition  of  great  violence 
was  raised,  which  resulted  in  the  destruction  of  the 
golden  eagle  which  he  had  placed  over  the  great  gate 
of  the  temple;  for  which  the  high  priest  Matthias, 


1 6        The  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke. 

because  of  his  favoring  or  participating  with  the 
seditious,  was  deposed,  but  not  otherwise  punished, 
Joazer,  his  wife's  brother  being  put  in  his  stead. 
But  another  Matthias  who  had  raised  the  sedition 
on  March  13th,  B.  C.  4,  was,  with  his  companions, 
burnt  alive.  For  some  reason  not  explained,  and, 
apparently,  not  understood,  Herod  was  very  lenient 
with  other  participants  in  the  affair,  and  it  certainly 
seems  remarkable  that  the  successor  of  the  offending 
high  priest  should  be  so  near  a  relation.  Back  of 
this  sedition  there  may  have  been  as  its  primary 
cause  or  origin,  the  strong  opposition  to  this  order 
of  Augustus,  and  it  may  be  that  it  is  to  this  that 
Josephus  refers  in  the  statement  that  "the  Jews  took 
the  report  of  the  taxation  heinously,"  not  the  taxa- 
tion itself,  but  the  information;  ("report")  that  the 
order  for  a  personal  and  estate  tax  had  gone  forth. 
It  could,  indeed,  have  been  only  the  publication  of 
the  decree  that  at  the  time  referred  to  had  stirred  up 
the  multitude,  doubtless  under  the  leadership  of  the 
high  priest  Joazar;  for  it  is  implied  that  the  levy 
had  not  then  been  made. 

As  previously  intimated,  or  suggested,  a  sedition 
occasioned  by  this  proclamation  or  its  simple  publi- 
cation may  not  have  been  so  very  offensive  to 
Herod ;  not  so  much  so,  at  least,  as  was  the  imperial 
order :  and  a  postponement  of  it  on  account  of  the 
violence  of  the  populace  may  have  met  with  some 
degree  of  favor  with  the  enfeeble''  king.  That  Joa- 
zar had  joined  in  with  some  seditious  purpose  of 
the  people  seems  clearly  indicated  by  the  fact,  that 


The  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke.        ly 

almost  immediately  after  the  death  of  Herod,  Arch- 
elaus  deposed  "Joazar  from  the  high-priesthood, 
whom  he  accused  of  having  assisted  the  seditious." 
His  influence  with  the  people  was  not  thereby  much 
impaired,  as  he  afterward  held  the  high-priesthood, 
"which  had  been  conferred  by  the  multitude  upon 
him."  His  leadership  continued  with  some  inter- 
missions for  many  years,  with  some  breaks,  as  did 
the  opposition  of  the  Jews  to  the  taxation ;  yet  when 
opposition  seemed  useless,  it  was  by  his  persuasion 
that  they  abandoned  it;  and  "being  over-persuaded 
by  Joazar's  words,  they  gave  an  account  of  their 
estates  without  further  trouble." 

In  the  years  of  Herod's  reign  herein  traversed, 
there  is  no  indication  that  any  governor  of  Syria  had 
claimed  or  exercised  authority  in  or  over  Judea,  or 
attempted  any  interference  in  its  affairs.  What 
may  seem  to  be  exceptions,  were  simply  responses 
to  invitations  extended  to  them  by  Herod  to  visit 
him  for  consultation  and  advice,  and  the  assemblage 
at  Berytus  was  called  by  the  advice  of  Augustus, 
and  included  the  rulers  of  the  neighboring  king- 
doms, dependencies,  and  persons  of  distinction, 
chiefly  to  give  counsel  in  regard  to  the  management 
of  his  family  concerns,  in  no  case  compromising 
his  regal  prerogatives,  but  reserving  to  himself 
the  final  determination  and  judgment.  For  all 
purposes,  the  kingdom  of  Judea  was  wholly  separ- 
ate and  independent  as  to  Syria  and  other  prov- 
inces of  the  Roman  Empire,  subject  as  were  they 
all  to  the  central  authority  of  the  Imperial  Republic 


1 8        The  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke. 

at  Rome.  There  is  no  indication  that  the  imperial 
authorities  had,  during  Herod's  life-time,  or  during 
the  reign  of  Archelaus,  sent  a  special  legate  or  other 
officer  into  Judea,  to  there,  make  effective  this 
Augustan  decree,  or  any  such  enrollment,  or  to  levy 
a  tax,  or  to  collect  a  tax  upon  the  persons  or  estates 
of  the  Jews.  The  proof  of  this  is  plainly  evident 
from  the  fact  that  immediately  after  the  death  of 
Herod,  Sabinus,  the  personal  or  private  steward  of 
Augustus  was  sent  into  Judea,  to  take  possession  of 
Herod's  effects,  bequeathed  in  his  will  to  Augustus, 
as  his  personal  and  private  property,  and  to  take 
possession  of  the  entire  estate,  not  in  any  wise  as 
a  subject  of  taxation,  or  a  source  of  revenue  for  the 
Republic.  In  the  entire  account  of  the  grasping 
proceedings  of  this  unscrupulous  steward,  there  is 
not  the  slightest  reference  to  any  previously  exist- 
ing governmental  enrollment,  assessment  or  uncol- 
lected or  collectible  tax.  Had  there  been  such,  it 
would  certainly  have  been  known  to  him,  and  the 
omitted  reference  thereto  is  strongly  in  evidence 
that  the  Augustan  decree  of  Herod's  day  had  not  yet 
been  carried  into  effect. 

We  may  now  say  without  fear  of  successful  con- 
tradiction that  the  name  of  Quirinus  or  its  Greek 
equivalent,  Cyrenius,  has  not  been  reported  as  found 
in  connection  with  the  story  of  Herod,  neither  in 
Josephus,  nor  in  any  other  contemporaneous  his- 
tory, as  in  any  way  connected  with  the  Jews  and 
Judea,  or,  as  in  Herod's  time,  governor  of  Syria. 
It  is  also  apparent  from  what  appears  above,  and 


The  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke.        19 

from  what  shall  appear  later  herein  that  had  Cyreni- 
us  been  governor  of  Syria,  he  could  not  have  held 
any  office,  or  performed,  or  superintended  such  an 
enrollment  in  Judea,  without  the  special  consent  and 
appointment  of  Herod,  which  it  is  to  the  last  degree 
incredible  that  he  could  obtain.  Moreover,  had  he 
been  thus  engaged  with  this  enrollment  at  the  time, 
prior  to,  or  immediately  subsequent  to  the  birth  of 
the  Christ,  it  would  seem  to  have  been  utterly  im- 
possible that  his  name  should  have  been  omitted 
from  the  number  of  the  close  friends  and  councillors 
of  Herod. 

In  treating  of  the  relation  of  Herod  and  his  king- 
dom to  Syria  and  its  governors,  great  stress  has 
been  laid  upon  the  anger  which  the  misrepresenta- 
tions of  Sylleus  had  created  in  Augustus,  and  upon 
the  expression  that  "he  had  formerly  treated  Herod 
as  a  friend,  but  would  now  treat  him  as  a  subject"; 
but,  little,  if  anything,  is  said  of  its  absolute  with- 
drawal and  the  humiliating  repentance  of  Augustus. 
Thus,  in  Ramsay's  chapter  on  "Herod's  enroll- 
ment," (?)  he  does  not  tell  us  as  Josephus  does, 
that  Augustus  was  reconciled,  nor  does  he  quote  that 
utterance  of  Augustus,  after  his  discovery  that  he 
had  been  deceived  by  a  false  account  of  the  trouble 
in  Arabia.  As  reported  by  Josephus,  Augustus  was 
not  only  reconciled  to  Herod,  but,  also  that  "he 
owned  his  repentance  for  what  severe  things  he  had 
written  to  him,  occasioned  by  calumny,  insomuch 
that  he  told  Sylleus  that  he  had  compelled  him  by 
his  lying  account  of  things  to  be  guilty  of  ingrati- 


20        The  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke. 

tude  against  a  man  that  was  his  friend."  For  this 
"lying"  the  liar  was  executed  by  order  of  Augustus. 
(Jos.  1 6,  10,  9.) 

Referring  to  the  angry  letter  of  Augustus,  Dr. 
Ramsay  writes;  "These  emphatic  words,  coming 
from  an  emperor  whose  words  were  always  well 
weighed  and  weighty,  soon  bore  fruit  in  action,  as 
we  may  be  certain."  Of  this  he  gives  no  proof,  and 
his  own  words  indicate  that  he  has  none  to  offer. 
Continuing,  he  writes:  "Nothing  is  related  as  to 
the  exact  form  that  the  Roman  action  took";  but 
he  tells  very  emphatically  how  much  Herod  was  em- 
barrassed by  the  loss  of  Augustus's  favor."  A 
complete  refutation  of  this  travesty  of  Josephus  is 
furnished  in  Ant.  B.  XVI.,  C,  IX.  The  form  was 
that  "Caesar  would  not  admit  so  much  as  an  em- 
bassage from  him  to  make  an  apology  for  him :  and 
when  they  came  again,  he  sent  them  away  without 
success,  (Sec.  4),  Sylleus  meantime  remaining  at 
Rome,  or  being  always  there  when  his  circumstances 
needed  his  presence  at  Court,  and  where  he  was  al- 
ways graciously  received.  The  result  was  that 
Herod's  subjects  in  Trachonitus  rebelled  and  joined 
the  robbers  in  pillaging  their  own  country  and  Ara- 
bia. Meantime  Obodas,  the  Arabian  king  died,  and 
his  son  took  the  government  before  he  sent  to 
Augustus,  who  was  greatly  angered  by  this  precipi- 
tate and  unwarranted  assumption.  Taking  advan- 
tage of  this  offence,  and  with  the  object  of  getting 
him  turned  out  of  his  principality,  Sylleus  filed  seri- 
ous charges  against  Aretas,  the  son,  which  met  with 


The  Gospels  of  Matthezv  and  Luke.       21 

favor,  Aretas  had,  however  sent  an  embassy  bear- 
ing an  epistle  and  rich  presents  to  Caesar,  the  letter 
charging  Sylleus  with  many  and  serious  crimes, 
among  them  that  of  poisoning  Obodas,  in  order  to 
obtain  the  kingdom  for  himself.  To  these  Caesar 
gave  no  heed,  but  sent  back  both  ambassadors  and 
presents.  Meantime  the  affairs  of  Judea  and  Ara- 
bia became  worse  and  worse.  Herod,  therefore, 
resolved  to  send  Nicolaus  of  Damascus  to  address 
Caesar  himself.  So  Aretas  also  sent  an  embassy 
which  met  Nicolaus  in  Rome,  who  when  a  hearing 
was  granted  him,  began  a  series  of  accusations 
against  Sylleus,  but  was  stopped  by  Caesar,  "to 
show  that  Herod  had  not  done  what  was  charged 
against  him  in  Arabia."  Nicolaus  then  showed 
that  Sylleus  had  borrowed  from  Herod  five  hundred 
talents  secured  by  a  bond  stipulating  that  if  not  paid 
when  due,  it  should  be  lawful  to  make  a  seizure  out 
of  any  part  of  his  country,"  He  said  that  there 
was  no  army,  but  a  party  of  soldiers  sent  out  to  re- 
quire the  just  payment  of  the  money."  This  was 
not  sent  so  soon  as  the  bond  allowed,  but  that  Syl- 
leus had  frequently  come  before  the  Presidents  of 
Syria  (doubtless,  through,  their  influence  to  secure 
a  promise  from  Herod  that  he  would  extend  the 
time  to  such  date  as  they  might  fix,  or  at  their  dis- 
cretion), and  that  at  last  he  had  sworn  at  Berytus 
in  Syria,  that  he  would  pay  the  money  within  thirty 
days.  Upon  failure  to  pay  at  the  time  appointed, 
courtesy  demanded  that  Herod  should  notify  the 
presidents  of  his  intention;  and  according  to  inter- 


22        The  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke. 

state  custom  or  law,  to  obtain  their  permission  for 
a  party  of  armed  soldiers,  with  hostile  intent,  to 
pass  through  Syria,  of  which  they  were  rulers,  to 
violently  enter  Arabia,  with  which  they  were  then 
at  peace,  and  having  received  that  permission,  the 
seizure  was  made  in  Arabia. 

Thus  far  our  contention  that  the  kingdom  of  Ju- 
dea  in  the  later  years  of  Herod  was,  to  say  the  least, 
on  equality  with,  and  entirely  separate  from  Syria; 
— an  independent  kingdom  indeed — except  that  it 
was,  like  all  other  parts  of  the  realm,  dependent  up- 
on and  subordinate  to  the  central  authorities, — the 
imperial  executive  and  senatorial  authority  at  Rome; 
so  that  if  Cyrenius  had  been  governor  of  Syria  in  the 
later  years  of  Herod's  reign  he  could  not  have  made 
the  enrollment,  nor  performed  any  governmental 
function  without  the  consent  of  Herod  or  an  ap- 
pointment by  him.  In  this  Herod  and  Judea  differ- 
ed from  and  ranked  higher  than  the  province  of 
Syria  and  its  governors. 

In  further  attestation  or  confirmation  of  this  our 
conclusion,  Josephus  writes,  that;  Augustus,  "also 
made  him  (Herod)  a  procurator  of  all  Syria,  and 
this  on  the  tenth  year  afterward,  when  he  (Augus- 
tus), came  again  into  that  province  (Syria);  and 
this  was  so  established,  that  the  other  procurators 
could  not  do  anything  in  the  administration  without 
his  (Herod's)  advice."     (War.  L,  20.) 

To  this  may  be  added  the  attestation  of  Merivale, 
that  by  Augustus,  when  personally  present  in  Judea, 
"Herod  was  himself  guaranteed  protection  by  spe- 


The  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke.       23 

cial  ordinance  from  the  obnoxious  interference  of 
the  governors  of  Syria,"  and  that  "such  were  the 
brilliant  rewards  he  obtained  for  maintaining  the 
police  of  the  Arabian  Desert;  chasing  the  nomad 
sheiks,  and  gradually  enuring  them  to  the  stern  con- 
trol of  civilized  authority.  (Hist.  Rom.,  Vol.  IV., 
p.  114 — Lond.,  p.  171.)  This  may  suffice  for  this 
part. 

PART  2 
The   Examination  of  the   Greek  Text  of  Luke 

We  may  now,  therefore,  subject  the  language  and 
form  of  the  Greek  text  of  Luke  to.  a  more  or  less 
critical  examination,  with  the  intent  to  ascertain,  if 
possible,  what  Luke  really  did  write;  and  then,  to 
give  a  true  interpretation  of  what  he  has  written. 

If  the  text,  of  which  the  Authorized  Version  is 
the  translation,  is  the  original,  there  would  seem  to 
be  no  valid  reason  why  the  statement  of  Luke  2  :  2, 
may  not  be  rendered :  "This,  the  first  ecumenical 
registration  (as  ordered  by  Augustus)  was  made, 
(or  effected)  whilst  Cyrenius  was  governor  of 
Syria."  Even  as  found  in  our  common  version,  the 
statement  that  it  was  carried  into  effect  by  Cyrenius, 
whilst  a  Syrian  officer,  absolutely  precludes  the  idea 
that  the  order  was  carried  into  effect  and  the  regis- 
tration actually  made  at  or  near  the  date  of  the  de- 
cree itself,  or  date  of  its  having  reached  Herod, 
since  it  has  been  clearly  shown,  that  in  Herod's  life- 
time he  could  have  done  nothing  of  that  sort. 


24        The  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke. 

That  decree  ordered  :  aTroypa<$>e<r6ai     wacrav     rrjv 

olKovfi€vr]v  to  be  registered  (enrolled)  the  en- 
tire habitable  (part  of)  the  world  then  under  Rom- 
an jurisdiction."  It  is  to  this  that  the  following 
clause  has  especial  reference — viz. :    aim?  rj  a-rroypa^yj 

irpoyrtf   iyevero   r)yefxovevovTO<s  rrjs    Guptas   Kvprjviov. 

As/  however  there  is  considerable  diversity  of 
opinion  as  to  what  was  the  form  of  the  text  as  it 
came  from  Luke,  attention  may  now  be  given  to 
that  phase  of  the  subject,  with  a  view  to  arrive  at 
defmiteness  as  to  the  original  and  its  proper  inter- 
pretation. 

In  entering  upon  this  phase,  it  may  be  well  to 
remember,  in  estimating  the  value  of  the  several 
authorities,  that  in  the  matter  of  books  and  MSS. 
especially >,  "the  survival  of  the  fittest,"  is  not  the 
rule,"  but  rather  the  reverse.  A  manuscript  un- 
acceptable or  rejected  in  its  own  day,  might  be  de- 
stroyed or  relegated  to  an  upper  shelf ;  and  not  be- 
ing much  or  at  all  in  use,  would  not  be  worn  out; 
while  one  that  was  much  in  use,  after  a  time  would 
be  so  worn  as  to  make  it  necessary  to  replace  it  by 
another.  In  that  case,  when  the  cursive  had  come 
into  use,  it  would  take  the  place  of  the  uncial,  and 
the  parchment  being  still  of  value,  even  when  the 
text  was  discredited  and  as  such,  of  little  value,  the 
material  might  be.  and  in  many  cases  certainly  was 
used  for  other  purposes,  and  hence  their  rarity. 

To  instance  the  Sinaiticus.  This  manuscript  has 
no  history,  and  until  1859,  when  some  loose  leaves 
were  seen  by  Tischendorf  it  seems  to  have  been  con- 


The  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke.       25 

sidered  to  be  of  little  value  or  authority.  Critical 
examination  indicated  that  it  had  been  corrected  by 
six  different  hands,  among  them,  the  original  copy- 
ist, the  corrections  being  in  some  cases,  afterwards 
changed ;  this  itself  indicating  that  it  was  not  satis- 
factory in  the  fourth  century,  its  own  day ;  and  this 
may  perhaps  account  for  its  "survival"  for  some 
fourteen  centuries,  though  altogether  unknown  to 
the  world  outside  of  the  Monastery  of  St.  Cathe- 
rines in  Mt.  Sinai.  It  suspiciously  omits  the  dox- 
ology  to  the  Lord's  prayer,  which  is  found  in  the 
manuscript  of  "The  Teaching  of  the  Twelve 
Apostles'* :  the  date  of  which  is  set  by  critical  ex- 
perts at  about  A.  D.  120,  one  hundred  and  eighty 
or  more  years  earlier  than  the  Sinaiticus.  Why  this 
Sinaiticus  should  be  held  as  so  very  high  authority 
for  the  true  text,  may  possibly  be,  because  it  is  about 
the  latest  to  be  brought  "out  of  darkness  into  the 
light,"  and  thus  adds  its  quota  to  the  disagreements 
among  the  uncials  themselves. 

The  text  called  "Textus  Receptus,"  seems  to  have 
had  an  existence  prior  to  the  making  of  the  Sinaiti- 
cus, as  is  indicated  by  the  identification  of  the  person 
who  received  the  Ms.  from  the  writer  of  it,  as  the 
corrector  of  this  text :  a  correction  which  could  be 
made  either  by  addition  or  omission  in  some  way, 
and  which  in  this  case  took  the  form  of  omission  of 
the  Article  v  (the)  or  whatever  was  needed  in 
reducing  it  to  the  form  herein  protested  against. 

As  the  common  text  stands  with  the  rendering 
herein    given,  the    date  of    the  registration     is  no 


26        The  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke. 

otherwise  determined  than  that  it  was  made  whilst 
Cyrenius  was  in  office  in  Syria.  As  to  that  date,  it 
is  definitely  stated,  that,  while  holding  office  in 
Syria,  after  the  banishment  of  Archelaus,  he  came 
into  Judea,  and  made  an  enrollment  or  registration 
of  the  Jewish  people  and  of  their  estates.  This  was 
subsequently  to  the  death  of  Herod,  and  not  earlier 
than  A.  U.  C.  758,  some  eleven  years  later  than  or 
after  the  birth  of  Christ.  As  definitely  character- 
izing the  office  held  in  Syria  by  Cyrenius,  Luke  with 
his  usual  exactitude,  uses  the  active  voice,  present 
tense  participle  of  a  verb,  which  is  nowhere  else 
used  in  the  New  Testament :  and  this  participle  is 
used  only  twice  by  Luke,  and  appropriately  enough 
to  the  purpose  of  this  paper,  and  the  discussions  of 
the  importance  of  the  matters  pending  in  unsettled 
limbo,  it  is  used  only  as  designating  in  exactly  the 
same  form  and  words  at  the  same  period,  the  office 
then  held  by  Cyrenius  in  Syria,  and  by  Pontius  Pil- 
ate in  Judea,  viz. :  "^ye/AovevWos,"  ch.  2,  2,  where 
it  describes  the  Syrian  office  of  Cyrenius  and  in  ch. 
3,  2,  where  it  characterizes  the  office  of  Pilate  in 
Judea  ;*  translated  as  to  the  former  "when  Cyrenius 
was  governor  of  Syria,"  but  more  literally  in  the 

*Luke  ii.2.  7jy€}XOV€.vovTO<i  Trjs  Guptas  K.vpr)Viov-  When  Cyrenius 
was  Governor  of  Syria. 

Luke  iii.i.  ^ye/xovevovros  IT ovtlov  UlXoltov  ttjs  '  lovSaias, 
Pontius  Pilate  being  Governor  of  Judea. 

The  "usage"  is  exactly  the  same,  especially  in  the  States 
of  the  Union,  the  official  who  is  called  the  "Governor"  being 
commander  of  its  military  and  its  civil  authority  or  functions, 
and  with  their  usual  exegetical  instinct  the  translators  of 
King  James'  version  used  Governor  as  the  best  substitute  in 
our  language,   for  the  original. 


The  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke.       2j 

latter  "Pontius  Pilate  being  governor  of  Judea"; 
Luke  thus  clearly  indicating  his  understanding  to 
be,  that  what  Pilate  was  in  Judea,  Cyrenius  was  in 
Syria;  and  since  it  is  well  attested  by  the  New  Tes- 
tament and  Josephus  that  Pilate  was  empowered  to 
exercise  both  civil  and  military  jurisdiction  in  Ju- 
dea, the  same  was  conceded  as  belonging  to  Cyreni- 
us in  Syria,  and  this  combination  of  authority,  both 
civil  and  military,  in  one  and  the  same  person,  is 
certainly  well  and  distinctly  expressed  and  empha- 
sized in  our  English  vernacular  by  our  word  "gov- 
ernor." 

In  this  text  the  demonstrative  pronoun  "avrrf 
(this)  precedes  the  definite  Article  v  (the),  which 
precedes  a-rroypa^  (enrollment),  followed  by  ttp^ttj 
(first).  All  these  words  being  feminine  in  form, 
cannot,  therefore,  any  of  them  refer  to  Soy/"* 
(decree),  which  is  neuter.  Farrar  translates: 
"The  enrollment  took  place  as  the  first,  when  Cy- 
renius was  governor  of  Syria."  Alford's  digest 
shows  the  common  text  to  be  found  in  twenty  Un- 
cials, in  No.  33 — the  queen,  and  in  No.  69  of  the 
Cursives,  and  is  followed  by  all  the  Coptic  ver- 
sions; it  is  omitted  by  B.  D.  The  Sinaiticus  has 
both  forms,  which  shows  that  at  that  early  day,  this 
text  had  a  recognized  existence;  and  the  same  may 
be  said  of  Eusebius.  Alford  with  some  other  crit- 
ics, rejects  the  Article;  and  in  this  only,  does  his 
text  differ  from  the  received  text.  Other  variations 
are  rejected  by  him  and  for  our  purpose  are  of  no 
importance  whatever. 


28        The  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke. 

This    Clause :         "avrrj     rj      airoypacpr)      irpwTT)     eytvero/ 

which  is  the  basis  of  our  common  version,  is  not 
grammatically  objectionable,  but  seems  to  be  accept- 
able as  "good  Greek";  the  objections  originating, 
rather  than  otherwise,  from  apparent  difficulties 
which  a  strictly  accurate  rendering  of  this  form 
meets  when  brought  in  conflict  with  the  commonly 
accepted,  but  erroneous,  view  of  the  relation  of  Cy- 
renius  and  his  date,  to  the  carrying  into  effect  of  the 
decree  of  Augustus.  The  text  certainly  conforms  to 
the  rule:  "Nouns  defined  by  Demonstrative  Pro- 
nouns," (e.  g.  o.vTr}  (this,  etc.),  "directly  agree- 
ing with  them,  take  the  Article,  which  always  im- 
mediately precedes  the  noun."  Green,  N.  Test.  Gk. 
Gram.,  p.  191).  Luke  would  not,  therefore,  be 
likely  to  omit  the  Article,  between  the  Demonstra- 
tive and  the  Substantive.  (Cf.  Kuhner,  Gk.  Gram. 
245,  3,  4,  1;  246,  3.)"  In  regard  to  position,  the 
Demonstrative  «w^  (this),  stands  in  good  prose, 
either  before  the  Article,  or  after  the  Substantive." 
(Buttman,  Gk.  Gram.  127,  9.)  Winer  quotes  the 
passage  as  in  the  common  text,  and  writes:  "the 
most  natural  rendering  is :  "This,  the  first  enroll- 
ment, took  place  when  Quirinus  was  governor,"  etc. 
....  "Had  the  meaning  been  different,  Luke  would 
have  employed  phraseology  not  merely  ambiguous, 
but  awkward  and  ungrammatical."  (Gk.  Gram. 
N.  T.,  xxx.,  n.  p.  259.) 

If,  now,  we  take  the  text  in  this  clause,  as  pre- 
ferred by  Alford,  we  may  not  reach  the  same  defi- 
nite conclusion,   which   the  Article  gives,  but  the 


The  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke.       29 

irpuiT-q  must,  unquestionably  be  construed  as  be- 
longing to  a.7roypa(j>Yj,  and,  therefore,  in  the  connec- 
tion with  the  preceding  avrr)  must  be  rendered: 
"This,  the  first  enrollment."     To  this  Luke  adds: 

"iyevero  r/yep^ovevovros  rrjs  %vpux<s  Kvprjviov"  literally  :    "was 

effected.  Cyrenius  meanwhile  governing  Syria" ; 
or  perhaps  more  definitely,  "was  effected  during 
Cyrenius'  governorship  of  Syria."  This  or 
any  strict  rendering  of  Alford's  text  seems 
less  emphatic  and  comprehensive  than  that  which 
retains  the  Article,  but  ajroypa^  is  just  as  clearly 
the  subject  of  iyevero  as  it  was  in  the  Textus  Re- 
ceptus,  and  in  its  rendering  in  King  James'  version. 

As  Luke  uses  the  same  form  in  describing  the 
official  relation  of  Pilate  to  Judea,  as  he  uses  in  de- 
scribing the  relation  of  Cyrenius  to  Syria,  the  entire 
clause  may  then  be  rendered  in  strict  accord  with 
its  grammatical  construction ;  "This,  the  first  enroll- 
ment, was  effected  while  Cyrenius  had  to  Syria  the 
same  relation  that  Pilate  had  to  Judea" ;  that  is,  each 
combining  in  his  own  person,  both  civil  and  milita- 
jurisdiction,  his  official  title  and  office  being,  there- 
fore, most  nearly  represented  in  our  vernacular  by 
our  word  "governor,"  usually  a  subordinate  officer. 

Now  the  preceding  clause  includes  the  word  &6ypxx 
which  being  neuter  cannot  be  in  agreement  with 
the  feminine  o.vT-q  (this),  but  the  o-v^v  is  found  to 
be  in  agreement  with  what  the  decree  orders,  and 
its  descriptive  terms  are  all  in  agreement  therewith. 

In  following  the  Alfordian  text,  it  is  found  that 
-rrpuiT-q    still  retain  its  form  as  a  feminine  adjective, 


30        The  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke. 

but  Alford  treats  it  as  an  adverb,  and  translates: 
"This  enrollment  first  took  place  when  Cyrenius 
was  governor  of  Syria."  For  this  transformation, 
no  authority  is  given.  He  also  acts  on  the  twice 
governorship  idea,  to  which  Luke  gives  no  counte- 
nance whatever.  His  fault  is,  in  not  adhering  to  his 
own  text,  yet  following  the  scent  evolved  from  the 
Fathers  of  old. 

It  is  somewhat  of  a  surprise  that  in  the  wild  chase 
after  the  phantomic  second  Syrian  term,  there 
should  be  an  almost  universal  oversight  or  ignoring 
of  the  most  distinctively  definite  ecumenical  feature 
of  the  Augustan  decree,  to  which  and  to  its  vital 
importance,  the  Demonstrative  and  Article  have 
been  constantly  pointing  without  any  but  a  casual 
recognition;  since  both  characteristically  refer  to 
what  has  been  previously  mentioned,  and  necessarily 
include,  for  a  complete  understanding,  the  entire 
order  as  set  forth  by  Augustus.  To  Luke  we  are 
indebted  for  the  preservation  of  the  true  record  of 
the  form,  extent  and  limitation  of  this  decree.  It  is 
thus  clear  that  the  retention  of  the  y  (the)  is  needed 
to  definitely  emphasize  the  distinctive  character  of 
this  particular  enrollment,  as  sharply  in  con- 
trast with  those  enumerating,  the  Cives  Romani; 
ordered  as  it  was,  after  the  Civil  War,  when  Augus- 
tus had  become  dominant. 

Other  enrollments  had  been  made  by  order  of 
Augustus  both  before  and  after  the  date  of  Christ's 
birth,  and  this  being  well  known,  apologists  in  the 
second  century  seem  to  have  assumed  that,  "first," 


The  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke.       31 

referred  to  a  Syrian  term  for  Cyrenius  at  the  date 
required ;  and  for  these  sixteen  centuries,  it  has  been 
and  still  is  merely  an  unsustained,  and  now  becom- 
ing, a  discredited  assumption. 

The  distinction  of  these  enrollments  may  be  seen 
by  a  comparison  of  results.  Thus  in  the  enrollment 
made  in  B.  C.  28,  the  reported  result  was  4,164,060 
Roman  Citizens;  but  the  estimated  population  of 
the  Roman  world  was  128,000,000.  So  the  cen- 
sus of  B.  C.  8,  showed  a  total  of  4,100,233  of  Rom- 
an Citizens,  yet  a  large  increase  of  territory  had 
been  made  in  the  twenty  years  since  the  former  Cen- 
sus. So  also  some  twenty  years  later  the  report 
gave  only  4,190,117.  It  is  thus  shown  that  these 
enrollments  taken  as  occasion  required,  were  not 
always  taken,  if  at  all,  for  purposes  of  revenue,  or 
taxation,  but  rather  to  keep  account  of  those  who 
were  worthy  to  become  senators,  or  to  hold  offices 
of  trust,  to  bear  arms,  etc.  Later  on,  the  interval 
of  five  years  was  most  used  for  this  purpose.  That 
the  enrollment  to  which  Luke  refers,  is  different  in 
its  purpose  and  comprehension  is  clearly  indicated 
in  this  first  clause,  in  which  he  writes    ^Afle    hoypa 

Trapa  Katcrctpos  Avyovarov,  a7roypd<peo0ai  Tracrav  rrjv  olKOVfxivqv- 

"There  came  a  decree  from  Caesar  Augustus  that 
all  the  habitable  (world)  should  be  enrolled." 

The  date  of  the  issuance  of  this  decree  is  fixed 
within  narrow  limits,  by  Luke's  statement,  its  own 
characteristics  and  its  relation  to  Cyrenius.  The 
numbering  it  as  the  "first"  order  for  enrollment  by 
Augustus  would  put  it  too  early  for  the  incident  at 


32        The  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke. 

Bethlehem  and  not  being  Roman  Citizens  the  Jews 
would  not  go  for  this  enrollment.  No  justification 
for  such  an  order  could  be  found  while  civil  war  was 
raging,  or  while  Augustus  was  engaged  in  pacify- 
ing the  provinces.  The  order  indicates  that  a  time 
of  peace  had  come.  There  was  no  time  earlier  than 
the  time  of  Herod's  last  year,  when  the  Roman 
authority  had  been  so  universally  established  as  to 
justify  such  a  sweeping  decree. 

As  there  has  not  hitherto  been  brought  out,  or 
any  positive  evidence  found,  that  any  imperial  ecu- 
menical enrollment,  such  as  this  decree  of  Augustus, 
had,  prior  thereto,  been  ordered  or  made,  this  state- 
ment of  Luke  may  be  rightly  interpreted  and  clearly 
and  unequivocally  set  forth  as  in  so  far,  at  least, 
covered  by  and  covering  the  following  expression : 

"This,  to  wit,  the  first  imperial  ecumenical  regis- 
tration or  enrollment  of  persons  and  estates  was,  as 
to  Jewish  people,  after  several  years  delay,  carried 
into  effect,  whilst  Cyrenius  was  governor  of  Syria, 
subsequently  to  the  death  of  Herod,  and  the  banish- 
ment of  Archelaus." 

In  this  connection  we  quote  from  Dr.  W.  M. 
Ramsay's  book:  "Was  Christ  born  in  Bethlehem?" 
"We  conclude,  then,"  writes  he,  "that  if  Luke's 
authority  is  trustworthy,  there  must  have  prevailed 
during  the  first  century,  a  system  of  numbering  the 
population  at  periodic  intervals  in  the  Syrian  prov- 
ince and  probably  in  other  eastern  lands,  or  even  in 
the  whole  Empire."  (To  which  I  reply;  "not  neces- 
sarily.    It  would  be  sufficient  if  there  was  one  such 


The  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke.        33 

ecumenical  enumeration),  since  that  would  be  a 
'first'  if  it  had  no  predecessor ;"  Luke  commits  him- 
self to  no  further  details.  He  does  not  write,  that 
"the  principle  of  universal  enrollments  for  the  Em- 
pire was  laid  by  Augustus:"  "nor  that  the  system 
had  been  then  put  in  force  in  Syria,"  or  "that  it  had 
then  come  into  permanent  use."  He  simply  indicates 
that  when  he  wrote,  it  was  well  known,  that,  before 
the  birth  of  Christ,  Augustus  had  issued  an  order 
for  "an  ecumenical  enrollment,"  which  Luke,  from 
what  he  could  have  known,  designates  as  the  "first" 
of  its  kind,  (i.  e.,  "ecumenical  enrollment"),  ever 
issued  by  Augustus,  and  adds  that  in  Judea  it  was 
not  put  in  force  until  more  than  ten  years  after  its 
issue;  in  other  words  (it  was  not  put  in  force 
until  whilst  "Cyrenius  was  governor  (^ye^ovevWos) 
of  Syria.")  Dr.  Ramsay  avers  that  Luke's  "credit 
as  an  historian  is  staked  on  this  issue,"  that,  "there 
was  a  periodical  numbering  or  enrollment  in  the 
Syrian  province,  and  that,  Christ  was  born  actually 
during  the  time  when  the  first  enrollment  of  the 
series  was  being  made  in  Palestine."  (p.  127.)  This 
is  certainly  an  unfair  or  false  and  strangely  mis- 
leading statement ! !  Luke  says  nothing  about  an 
enrollment  in  the  Syrian  province,  nor  of  any  Jew- 
ish enrollment  other  than  that  made  when  Cyrenius 
was  ruling  in  Syria. 

The  "credit  of  Luke  as  an  historian  may  justly 
be  staked  on  what  he  has  written.  We  may,  there- 
fore, state  as  plainly  and  exactly  as  may  be,  for  what 
he  is  responsible.     He  states,  that  the  order,  which 


34        The  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke. 

must  have  reached  Herod  near  the  close  of  his  reign 
and  prior  to  the  birth  of  Christ  as  may  herein  below 
be  shown,  was  the  first  order  for  an  imperial  ecu- 
menical registration  of  persons  and  property  or 
estates  issued  by  and  under  the  authority  of  Augus- 
tus, and  that  it  was  carried  into  effect  in  Judea 
while  Cyrenius  was  governor  (rjyeiM>vevovros)  in  Syria. 
Furthermore  that  he  is  not  responsible  for  any  other 
comparative  description  or  reference  thereto  in  his 
continuous  history  of  the  Christian  movement,  writ- 
ten for  his  friend,  or  perhaps,  patron,  Theophilus, 
or  by  others  quoted  therein.  The  only  comparative 
or  emphatic  reference  to  it,  is,  that  this  was  the  first 
enrollment  of  its  kind  ordered  by  Augustus.  We 
may  emphasize  his  statement,  that  the  registration 
was  made  in  Judea  when  Cyrenius  was  governor 
(riytfiovevovTos)  of  Syria.  It  follows,  therefore,  that 
according  to  Luke,  there  was  no  prior  registra- 
tion in  Judea — and  as  there  is  no  record  of  his  hav- 
ing been  governor  of  Syria  at  an  earlier  date,  it  fol- 
lows also  that  there  was  no  registration  or  enroll- 
ment in  Judea  during  the  sojourn  of  the  Davidic 
family  in  Bethlehem. 

Gamaliel's  reference  was  clearly  to  the  same  or- 
der, but  Luke  is  only  responsible  for  the  faithfulness 
of  his  report ;  and  contradiction  or  inaccuracy  there- 
in has  not  hitherto  been  found,  nor  is  it  likely  that 
such  will  appear  hereafter. 

That  a  registration  or  enrollment  in  Judea  was 
made  by  Cyrenius  while  governor  of  Syria  is  con- 
firmed by  contemporaneous   history;   and   if  there 


The  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke.       35 

never  was  a  later  one  of  this  kind,  that  would  not 
invalidate  his  affirmation  that  there  was  a  "first," 
and  that,  that  first  was  made  by  virtue  of  that  order 
or  "decree"  named  by  him  as  issued  near  the  close 
of  Herod's  reign.      (A.  U.  C.  749-750.) 

Neither  is  Luke's  "credit  as  an  historian  at  stake," 
whether  the  statement  that  "there  was  a  periodical 
numbering  or  enrollment  in  the  Syrian  province  be 
true  or  false.  For  he  has  neither  affirmed  nor  de- 
nied such  a  statement.  He  does  not  say  specifically, 
that  this  enrollment  was  made  in  Syria  at  any  time, 
only  as  the  word  ecumenical  may  cover  Syria.  He 
does  specify  Judea,  and  other  history  confirms 
his  statement,  both  as  to  time  and  person.  He  does 
not  say  that  "Christ  was  born  actually  during  the 
time  when  the  first  enrollment  of  the  series  was  be- 
ing made."  On  the  contrary  he  is  authority  for  the 
reverse.  He  writes  that  the  Christ  was  born  after 
the  decree  or  order  had  been  issued;  and  that  that 
order  was  the  cause  of  the  movement  which  brought 
it  about  that  the  birth  of  the  child  occurred  while  his 
mother  was  in  Bethlehem,  but  does  not  write  that 
this  enrollment  was  or  was  not  then  effected  in  Syria, 
but  simply  notes  that  some  ten  years  after  the  birth 
of  the  Christ  child,  Cyrenius,  whilst  governor  of 
Syria,    carried  this  order   of  Augustus  into   effect. 

After  a  vast  amount  of  research  to  find  material 
sufficient  to  discredit  the  story  at  this  point,  and  the 
use  of  the  most  extraordinary  expedients,  and  in 
some  cases  employing  methods  absurd  and  irrational 
in  the  eighteen  centuries  since  this  birth,  the  state- 


36        The  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke. 

ment  of  Luke  as  to  this  matter,  is  the  only  one,  espe- 
cially as  to  this  item,  which  can  claim  a  true  and 
historic,  uncontradicted  authority. 

Neither  is  Luke's  credit  as  an  historian  jeopard- 
ized by  the  most  singular  absurdity  of  clinging  to 
this  hour,  to  the  theory  that  Luke  is  responsible  for 
the  current  assumption  that  Cyrenius  was  twice  gov- 
ernor of  Syria.  He  is  responsible  for  having  writ- 
ten that  Cyrenius  was  governor  of  Syria  at  a  date 
determinable  within  very  narrow  limits  by  the  ban- 
ishment of  Archelaus,  which,  when  he  wrote,  was 
common  matter  of  history,  and  to  many  of  that  age 
well  known,  having  occurred  during  the  lifetime  of 
very  many  then  living  persons ;  but  no  man,  whether 
learned  or  unlearned,  higher  critic  or  lower  critic, 
can  take  what  he  has  actually  written,  be  it  either  the 
common  text  or  the  Alfordian  text,  and  therefrom, 
make  Luke  attribute  for  this  indefatigable  soldier 
more  than  the  single  term  allotted  to  him  in  Jose- 
phus.  Luke's  "first"  (vpwrrf)  applies  with  absolute 
and  unerring  distinctness  to  the  ecumenical  (oikov- 
/itvrjv)  enrollment,  and  to  that  only;  and  for  that 
enumeration  as  the  "first"  imperial  "ecumenical" 
registration  or  enrollment  of  persons  and  estates  he 
is  responsible;  and  thus  far,  no  positive  evidence 
has  been  adduced  to  discredit  it.  "Clement  of  Alex- 
andria refers  to  the  statement  of  Luke  and  speaks  of 
it  as  the  occasion  when  they  ordered  enrollments  to 
be  made!'  (R.  p.  123.)  It  is  somewhat  singular 
that  the  notion  of  a  second  governorship  of  Cyrenius 
apparently    originated  with    Christian  writers,  and 


The  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke.       37 

not  earlier  than  late  in  the  second  century.  It  does 
not  seem  to  be  known,  or  to  have  been  found  in  the 
historic  or  other  works  of  the  early  unchristian 
Roman  writers,  (i.  e.  writers  not  of  the  Christian 
persuasion),  prior  to  its  introduction  and  use  in  the 
writings  of  the  "Christian  Fathers."  This  erroneous 
interpretation,  and  the  confident  appeal  for  its  con- 
firmation to  the  Archives  and  public  records  which, 
in  all  probability,  had  been  destroyed  by  fire  before 
the  enthronement  of  Vespasian,  and  which  none  of 
these  Fathers,  in  all  probability,  had  ever  seen,  and 
of  which  it  is  uncertain  that  any  republication  had 
ever  been  made,  are  certainly  misleading  later  in- 
vestigators. These  likewise  are  represented  as  as- 
suming that  for  the  vindication  of  Luke's  Gospel 
and  Acts,  it  is  absolutely  necessary  to  find  for  this 
vindictive  husband  of  the  fascinating  but  divorced 
Lepida,  at  least,  one  more  term  as  governor  of  Syria, 
than  real  history  allots  to  him.  Our  latest  writer, 
in  his  latest  treatise,  in  making  choice  of  his  authori- 
ties, wisely  declining  the  leadership  of  Zumpt,  pa- 
thetically, almost  depairingly,  writes:  "We  follow 
Mommsen;  but  it  is  obvious  how  difficult  and  slip- 
pery the  whole  career  of  Cyrenius  is,  and  how  slow 
we  should  be  to  condemn  Luke  for  an  error  in  re- 
gard to  him."  (R.,  p.  233.)  Slowness  is  certain- 
ly commendable  in  the  case  of  Cyrenius,  since  the 
trouble  grows  out  of  the  falsity  of  the  assumption 
that  he  was  governor  of  Syria  at  an  earlier  period 
than  that  historically  established,  and  the  utter  fail- 
ure to  historically  confirm  their  assumption.     Luke 


38        The  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke. 

has  certainly  committed  no  "error  in  regard  to 
him."  He  names  him  but  once,  and  that  is  when 
he  writes,  that  while  governor  of  Syria,  Cyrenius 
made  the  enrollment  under  this  first  imperial  ecu- 
menical decree  of  Augustus,  which  was  to  enroll  the 
population  of  the  habitable  world  so  far  as  then  un- 
der his  jurisdiction  and  government.  Prior  to  this, 
at  twenty  years  intervals  Augustus  had  taken  two 
enumerations  of  Roman  Citizens,  but  not  including 
their  estates  or  property.     (R.,  p.  233.) 

It  will  be  readily  seen  that  by  this  exactitude  of 
Luke,  and  a  similar  exactitude  in  translating: — 
simply  taking  his  words  or  statements  and  interpret- 
ing them  in  their  ordinary,  or  usually  accepted 
meaning:  Cyrenius  is  entirely  eliminated  from  all 
connection  with  this  worldwide  apographe,  or  en- 
rollment, until  his  appointment  as  governor  of  Syria, 
and  not  then  as  to  Judea,  according  to  Josephus, 
until  after  the  death  of  Herod,  and  indeed  not  until 
after  the  banishment  of  Archelaus  in  the  tenth  year 
of  his  reign,  which  is  in  perfect  accord  with  Luke's 
record. 

It  is  very  evident  that  there  was  no  vacancy, 
break  or  interregnum  in  the  governorship  of  Syria 
during  the  last  two  years  of  the  life  of  Herod.  As 
to  the  rule  of  Saturninus  and  Varus,  the  account  as 
found  in  Josephus  indicates  very  clearly  that  Varus 
had  been  appointed  governor  of  Syria  some  time 
before  the  death  of  Herod,  and  that  on  his  way  to 
Antioch,  the  capital  of  Syria,  he  lemained  sometime 
in  Jerusalem  in  consultation  with  Herod.     Just  be- 


The  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke.        39 

fore  the  arrival  of  Varus,  Saturninus  had  been  in 
Berytus  and  afterward  in  Judea  with  Herod,  at 
whose  request  and  by  the  advice  of  Augustus,  the 
matters  concerning  his  household  disturbances  had 
been  under  consideration ;  so  that  it  is  apparent  that 
the  two  governorships  overlapped  each  other ;  Satur- 
ninus during  this  period,  holding  over,  awaiting  the 
arrival  of  his  successor,  and,  therefore,  being  gov- 
ernor de  facto ;  Varus  being  governor  de  jure;  and 
the  Christ  having  been  born  in  this  interval,  or  time 
of  double  authorities,  as  is  most  probable  that  he 
was,  a  Christian  Father  might  rightly  speak  of  Jesus 
as  having  been  born  under  Saturninus,  and  another 
might  just  as  truly  say  that,  that  distinction  belong- 
ed to  Varus,  both  being  correct. 

The  extraordinary  persistence  in  the  determina- 
tion to  find  a  date  for  a  Syrian  rule  of  Cyrenius, 
prior  to  that  assigned  to  him  by  Josephus  and  Luke, 
has  certainly  been  misleading  and  left  the  period  sub- 
sequent to  Varus,  and  A.  D.  5,  a  chaotic  congestion 
from  which  the  elimination  of  the  assumed  claim  of 
Cyrenius  for  a  term  in  that  period  seems  to  bring 
the  desired  relief.  As  above  stated  Varus  did  un- 
questionably come  to  the  Syrian  office  prior  to  the 
death  of  Herod,  and  was  actively  engaged  in  Jew- 
ish affairs,  after  Herod's  death,  by  invitation  of 
Archelaus  at  the  beginning  of  his  reign,  and  for 
sometime  after.  Assuming  that  Varus  entered  up- 
on his  term  in  B.  C.  5,  the  continuous  insubordina- 
tion of  the  Jews  during  the  earlier  years  of  Arche- 
laus, and  the  manifest  worthlessness  and  incompe- 


40        The  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke. 

tence  of  that  prince  is  suggestive  of  the  necessity  for 
the  continuance  of  Varus,  to  give  aid  and  to  sup- 
press with  his  legions  the  seditious,  and  maintain 
the  authority  of  the  ruler. 

As  it  was  a  matter  of  great  importance  in  the  ef- 
fort to  establish  the  claim  set  up  for  the  second  term 
for  Cyrenius,  A.  W.  Zumpt  has  prepared  a  list  of 
the  governors  of  Syria,  a  portion  of  which  from 

B.  C.  9,  A.  U.  C.  745  to  A.  D.  17,  A.  U.  C,  770, 
is  given,  and  in  parallelism  a  correction  of  the  same 
by  this  writer : 

ZUMPT'S  My  suggested  corrections. 

Names                B.C.  A.U.C.  I'm  Names               B.C.  A.U.C.  T'a 

Saturninus    ...    9  745  3  Saturninus    ...   9      745      4 

Varus  6  748  2           Varus   5     749     5 

Cyrenius   4  750  3 

Lollius   1  753  3 

A.  D.  A.  D. 

Censorinus   ...   3  756  1  Censorinus   ...   1     754     1 

Vol.  Saturninus  4  757  2  V.  Saturninus     4     755     S 

Cyrenius   6  759  5           Cyrenius   5     758     6 

Q.  Cae.  Silanus  11  764  6           Silanus 11     764     6 

C.  Calp.  Piso      17  770  ..  C.  Calp.  Piso      17    770    .. 

Years  25  Years  25 

The  objections  to  Zumpt' s  list  are :  as  to  Cyrenius, 
that  his  presence  is  a  mere  assumption  against  prob- 
ability; as  to  Lollius,  that  in  B.  C.  2,  he  was  with 
Caius  in  Armenia,  that  in  B.  C.  i,  he  was  dismissed 
in  disgrace  for  having  betrayed  Roman  secrets  to 
the  Parthians:  Cyrenius  took  his  place  with  Caius, 
and  Lollius  took  poison  and  died.  It  was  a  strange 
conceit  with  Zumpt  that  such  a  villainous  traitor 
should  receive  any  reward,  and  not  rather  an  execu- 


The  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke.       41 

tion  on  a  Roman  cross,  than  the  most  desirable 
Province  in  the  Empire. 

We  may  now  take  up  the  matter  of  the  enrollment 
with  a  view  to  confirm  the  statement  of  Luke  that 
this  was  the  first  of  its  kind  and  nature  ordered  by- 
Augustus,  and  that  it  was  the  first,  or  the  beginning 
of  a  series  of  enrollments  of  a  like  nature  and  kind. 

In  the  treatise  of  W.  M.  Ramsay,  already  quoted, 
he  states  that  "periodical  enrollments  were  made  in 
Egypt  under  the  Roman  Empire,  and  that  "existing 
documents  establish  its  existence  as  periodically 
practiced  in  the  other  parts  of  the  realm  from  A.  D. 
y6  to  A.  D.  230.  . .  This  was  a  general  Census." 
(pp.  131,  134,  151.)  Dr.  Ramsay  attempts  to  show 
that  such  a  cycle,  but  of  fourteen  years  was  used  in 
Rome,  but  does  not  satisfactorily  establish  his  sup- 
posed Cycle.  Somewhat  of  confusion,  doubtless 
arises  from  the  oft-times  failure  to  distinguish  the 
general  census,  from  the  ordinary  census,  which  was 
made  as  occasion  required,  and  was  not  for  purposes 
of  taxation  or  revenue,  but  rather  to  keep  account 
of  those  who  were  worthy  to  be  senators,  or  to  hold 
offices  of  trust  and  authority;  to  bear  arms,  etc.,  five 
years  being,  perhaps,  the  most  common  interval. 
"Our  authorities  hardly  ever  mention  any  number- 
ing except  of  Cives  Romani.',  (p.  161.)  A  twenty 
years  Cycle  was  somewhat  familiar  to  the  Romans, 
about  the  close  of  the  civil  war,  and  as  we  shall  see 
afterward;  those  of  the  Cives  Romani,  apparently 
having  no  relation  to  the  revenue  or  to  taxation,  the 
object  of  the  ecumenical  Censi  subsequently  ordered. 


42        The  Gospels   of  Matthew  and  Luke. 

"Numbering  of  Roman  Citizens  was  three  times 
made  by  Augustus;  (viz.  at)  B.  C.  28.  B.  C.  8. 
A.  D.  14."  (p.  158.)  Dr.  Ramsay  enters  the  plea 
that  "the  fact  that  the  first  two  enumerations  of 
Augustus  show  an  interval  of  twenty  years  forms 
no  argument  against  our  theory  of  a  fourteen  year 
Cycle."  That  may  be  so,  but  they  certainly  do  not 
help  to  maintain  it,  and  are  quite  in  the  line  of  our 
contention  for  Luke's  historical  accuracy.  There 
is,  however,  other  evidence  of  a  twenty  year  cycle 
of  the  entire  empire.  From  Tacitus  (Annals,  VI. 
41),  we  learn  that  the  Clitae,  a  tribe  subject  to  the 
Cappadocian  King,  Archelaus,  retreated  to  the 
heights  of  Mt.  Taurus,  because  they  were  compelled, 
in  Roman  fashion,  to  render  an  account  of  their 
revenue,  and  submit  to  tribute.  This  is  the  case  re- 
ferred to  by  Zumpt,  in  his  "Commentatio,"  though 
the  date  is  A.  D.  36,  and,  therefore,  could  have 
nothing  to  do  with  Cyrenius  who  died  in  A.  D.  21. 
The  date  of  the  order  being  after  their  retreat,  and 
the  arrival  of  the  troops  from  Syria,  would  seem  to 
indicate  that  the  order  itself  would  be  dated  the  pre- 
vious year,  A.  D.  35.  A  twenty  years  cycle  would 
then  show  that  the  next  previous  order  would  be 
enforced  A.  D.  15,  and  the  next  preceding  order 
would  be  B.  C.  5 ;  the  year  of  the  birth  of  the  Christ 
as  herein  taken.  According  to  Luke,  this  order  was 
made  known  in  Judea,  prior  to  the  birth  of  Christ, 
in  the  form  of  an  enrollment,  Roman-world  wide 
in  its  comprehension;  described  by  Luke,  as  the  first 
of  this  kind  issued  by  Augustus,  and  clearly  identi- 
fied as  the  same  which,  after  years  of  delay  caused 


The  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke.       43 

by  the  disordered  state  of  the  ethnarchy,  was  car- 
ried into  effect  while  Cyrenius  sustained  the  same 
official  relation  to  Syria  that  later  on  Pilate  sustained 
to  Judea ;  the  time,  the  purpose  and  its  character  as 
including  for  taxation  or  revenue  population  and 
estates,  were  made  known  in  the  account  by  Jose- 
phus. 

Thus  far,  no  absolute  contradiction  nor  positive 
statement  of  ancient  authority,  prior  to  the  date  of 
Clement  and  Tertulian;  nor  indeed  at  any  time,  has 
been  adduced  to  its  discredit ;  nor  yet  to  establish  the 
existence  of  a  series  of  the  same  kind  and  nature, 
prior  to  the  date  Luke  has  given  us.  It  is  indeed 
patent,  clearly  evident,  that  not  earlier  than  this 
date,  was  the  Empire  in  such  a  condition,  as  to 
allow  or  to  justify  the  issuing  and  enforcement  of 
such  an  "ecumenical  enrollment. "  But  with  the 
temple  of  Janus  now  closed,  and  peace  prevailing 
through  the  Empire,  having  himself  just  returned 
from  its  pacification,  Augustus  was  for  the  first 
time  in  his  life,  in  circumstances  to  order  and 
enforce  the  enrollment  of  the  population  and  estates 
of  the  Empire,  such  as  that  which  Josephus  describes 
and  Luke  names  as  having  been  carried  into  effect 
at  the  later  date  in  Judea,  when  Cyrenius  was  hold- 
ing the  same  relation  and  official  position  in  Syria, 
as  at  a  still  later  date,  Pontius  Pilate  held  in  Judea, 
and  was  subsequently  held  by  Eelix  and  Festus,  who 
being  all  vested  with  both  military  and  civil  control 
are  best  described  in  our  English  vernacular  by  its 
word  "governor." 


44        The  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke. 

Referring  again  to  Dr.  Ramsay  we  recall  his  state- 
ment, that  "an  enrollment  took  place  under  Vespa- 
sian;' dated  by  Dr.  Viereck,  A.  D.  75-76,  A.  U.  C. 
829-830.  From  this  datum  a  cycle  of  twenty  years 
would  give  the  series  following:  B.  C.  5. — A.  U.  C. 
749.— A.  D.  15.— A.  U.  C.  769.— A.  D.  35.— 
A.  U.  C.  789.— A.  D.  55.— A.  U.  C.  809.— A.  D. 
75. — A.  U.  C.  829,  in  which  three  of  the  dates  have 
been,  as  reported,  verified;  the  first  B.  C.  5 — 
A.  U.  C.  749  by  Luke,  A.  D.  35  by  Tacitus,  and 
A.  D.  75  by  the  distinguished  authorities  as  named 
herein  from  Dr.  Ramsay  (p.  132).  With  this  pre- 
sentation, it  would  seem  that  the  exactitude  of 
Luke's  historic  statement  as  to  the  decree  of  Augus- 
tus ;  and  its  enforcement,  might  be  again  submitted, 
as  sustaining  all  that  is  claimed  for  him  as  author- 
ity; and  as  wholly  discharging  Christian  apologists 
from  the  necessity  for  this  purpose,  of  rinding  for 
Cyrenius  a  second  term  in  the  governor's  palace,  in 
the  most  delightfully  luxurious  Antioch,  the  then 
capital  of  Syria,  the  richest  and  most  sought  after 
of  the  Provinces. 

As  illustrative  of  the  troubles  in  which  those  are 
involved  who  assume  for  Cyrenius  an  earlier  Syrian 
term  than  that  named  by  Luke  and  Josephus  the 
following  may  be  cited  from  Dr.  Ramsey.  The  as- 
sumption necessarily  carries  with  it  the  obligation 
to  determine  the  date  of  the  administration.  The 
effort  to  settle  this  preliminary  wrings  from  Dr.  R. 
the  distressing  confession  that  "here  again  we  are 
confronted  with  a  serious  difficulty.     "He   is    not 


The  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke.       45 

alone.  He  is  in  antagonism  with  "his  supreme 
authority,"  Mommsen,  who  suggests  B.  C.  3-1,  but 
acknowledges  that  "the  question  is  involved  in  seri- 
ous doubts,"  and  Dr.  R.  writes,  "That  time  is  doubly 
inconsistent  with  Luke:  Herod  was  dead  before  it, 
and  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  whole  argument  of 
the  preceding  pages."  (pp.  228-9.)  "Again  Dr. 
R.  complains,  that  "Luke  does  not  specify  exactly 
what  was  the  Roman  office  which  Qurinus  had  at 
the  time  when  this  first  enrollment  was  made."  The 
only  answer  needed  to  this  is,  that  Luke  knew  only 
of  one  enrollment,  namely :  "the  first  ecumenical 
enrollment  ordered  by  Augustus  about  B.  C.  5," 
which,  he  writes  was  carried  into  effect  whilst  Cy- 
renius  was  holding  to  Syria,  the  same  official  rela- 
tion which  Pilate  was  holding,  at  a  later  date,  to 
Judea;  namely,  that  Roman  Office,  to  which  was 
committed  the  full  control  of  the  province,  both  civil 
and  military,  in  subordination  to  the  supreme  auth- 
ority, centered  at  Rome. 

Dr.  R.  further  writes :  "There  is  also  a  question, 
whether  Luke  could  rightly  describe  the  authority 
of  Cyrenius  by  the  words  'holding  the  hegemonia  of 
Syria/  but  of  that  point  my  exposition  leaves  no 
doubt."  It  is  enough  to  know  as  to  that,  that 
whether  he  could  or  could  not  rightly  so  use  these 
words  it  is  absolutely  certain  that  he  does  not  de- 
scribe "the  authority  of  Cyrenius  by  the  words  hold- 
ing the  hegemonia  of  Syria."  Nor  does  he  any- 
where use  either  "hegemonia,  or  hegemon"  in  con- 
nection with  Cyrenius.     In  describing  his  office  a 


46        The  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke. 

verb  is  used,  which  is  not  found  elsewhere  in  the 
New  Testament.  It  is  used  only  twice,  and  then, 
by  Luke  only  in  the  present  tense  participial  form, 
first,  Lu.  2  :2,  as  to  Cyrenius;  Lu.  3:1,  as  to  Pontius 
Pilate,  thus  distinctly  teaching  us  that  what  Pilate 
was  officially  to  Judea,  Cyrenius  was  officially  to 
Syria.  Dr.  R.  claims  that  "the  usage  of  Luke 
shows  that  he  regards  hegemonia  in  the  provinces 
as  the  attribute  both  of  the  Emperor  and  of  the 
officers  to  whom  the  Emperor  delegates  power." 
"This"  he  also  writes,  "is  quite  true  in  point  of 
fact."  To  this  a  positive  negative  is  the  proper 
answer.  No  such  usage  is  to  be  found  in  Luke's 
writings.  In  every  case  it  will  be  found  he  uses 
the  root  and  its  derivitives,  when  applied  to  govern- 
mental officials,  as  descriptive  of  a  subordinate  or 
subordination  and  not  of  supreme  authority.  Even 
when  applied  to  Tiberius  Caesar  it  was  with  the 
usual  exactness  of  Luke  so  applied.  For  at  the 
time  referred  to,  he  was  subordinate  to  Augustus, 
having  in  that  year  of  his  triumph,  been  endued  with 
both  the  hegemonia  and  title  of  Caesar,  the  hege- 
monia,  indicating  his  subordination  as  an  appointee 
of  a  higher  power,  the  very  same  root  word  being 
applied  to  Pontius  Pilate,  in  the  same  connection 
and  verse. 

I  most  heartily  agree  with  Dr.  R.  that  "Luke 
does  distinguish  accurately  and  clearly  the  enroll- 
ment." (p.  246-7.)  He  tells  us  clearly  and  dis- 
tinctly that  the  order  given  to  Herod  before  his 
death    was  for   the  "first    ecumenical    (or  Roman 


The  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke.       47 

world-wide)  enrollment  of  the  people  of  Judea,  and 
that  it  was  carried  into  effect,  so  far  as  Judea  was 
concerned,  when  Cyrenius  was,  in  the  Province  of 
Syria,  as  to  office,  what  Pilate  was  in  Judea :  ( w^o- 
voWros)  i.  e.,  Cyrenius  being  governor,  both 
military  and  civil,"  as  was  Pilate)  whenever 
and  whatever  that  might  mean.     It  was  8077*0,  irapo 

KouVapos    AvyovoTOV,    airoypd<f>eo6aL     iracrav    rqv     oiKOVfJi€vrjvt 

a  decree  (order)  from  Caesar  Augustus,  that 
all  the  habitable  world  (Empire)  should  be 
enrolled,  and  no  other  to  which  he  distinctly  refer- 
red, and  the  report  of  the  enrollment  made  by  Cy- 
renius as  described  by  Josephus,  proves  that  it  was 
for  population  and  the  estates  of  the  people.  It  was 
certainly  the  enrollment  effected  by  Cyrenius,  which 
Gamaliel  had  in  view ;  and  as  the  book  of  the  Acts, 
is  simply  a  continuation  of  what  he  had  had  begun 
for  the  information  and  edification  of  a  friend,  or, 
perhaps,  a  patron,  the  insertion  of  the  Article  by  Luke 
sufficiently  indicates  that  he  had  previously  men- 
tioned it.  The  maintaining  of  our  contention  of  the 
absolute  elimination  of  Cyrenius  from  any  or  all 
connection  with  any  enrollment  in  B.  C.  5  or  4,  or 
prior  to  that  mentioned  by  Luke  as  under  this  de- 
cree issued  by  Augustus,  and  verified  by  Josephus 
as  to  its  characteristics ;  and  the  actual  carrying  out 
of  it  as  stated  by  Luke,  leaves  the  historicity  of  Luke 
in  this  matter  without  flaw,  discredit,  or  impeach- 
ability.  It  accords  well  with  this  elimination  of  Cy- 
renius from  Syrian  office  and  from  all  connection 
with  this  first  apographe,  prior  to  A.  D.  5,  that  from 


48        The  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke. 

the  time  of  the  banishment  of  Archelaus  to  the  date 
of  Tertullian,  Clement,  Justin  Martyr  and  the 
Christian  Fathers,  no  unchristian  Latin  or  Greek 
author  seems  to  have  been  found  or  quoted  as  dis- 
tinctly and  unequivocally  mentioning  more  than  one 
term  of  Syrian  governorship,  or  as  prior  to  that  set 
forth  by  Luke,  and  historically  and  unquestionably 
verified  by  Josephus,  as  contemporaneous  with  or  as 
in  immediate  sequence  to,  the  banishment  of  the 
Jewish  Ethnarch,  the  son  of  Herod  the  Great. 

When  the  Apologists  wrote,  the  Empire- wide  en- 
rollments were  in  the  ascendent,  and  the  sharply 
marked  distinctions  were  doubtless  obscured  and  but 
seldom  noted.  The  interpretation  would  be  then 
conformed  to  the  existing  status.  As  the  early  en- 
rollments of  Augustus  were  known  to  have  long 
ante-dated  the  birth  of  the  Christ,  it  would  seem  ab- 
surd to  take  Luke's  "first"  as  intended  to  belong  to 
apographe;  but  as  very  properly  belonging  to' a  "Sy- 
rian" governorship,  prior  to  that  named  by  Luke. 
To  bring  the  text  into  accord  with  the  assumption  of 
an  earlier  governorship  of  Syria,  what  seems  to  have 
been  the  most  frequent  method  was,  to  omit  the  Ar- 
ticle, construe  Trp<i>rr}  adverbially  with  tycvero.  This 
left  unanswered  the  question,  "When  did  this  earlier 
term  come  in?"  To  this  question,  after  most  labori- 
ous researches  by  most  able  and  competent  investi- 
gators, no,  even  approximately,  satisfactory  answer 
was  found.  The  story,  indeed,  seems  to  be  one  of 
failure  along  the  entire  lines,  and  none  more  con- 
spicuously so  than  that  of  A.  W.  Zumpt.  Even  our 


The  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke.       49 

very  industrious  searcher  for  an  answer  to  his  inquiry 
after  the  birth  place  of  Christ,  and  this  kindred  study 
of  Cyrenius,  with  all  his  scholarly  ability  and  wealth 
of  materials,  has  not  as  yet  reached  a  conclusion  sat- 
isfactory to  himself.  As  to  what  he  is  pleased  to 
:all  "Herod's  enrollment,"  the  trend  of  evidence  is 
against  its  ever  having  been  made,  and  it  had  been 
well  not  to  have  overlooked  the  fact  that  neither 
Matthew  nor  Luke  had  written,  that  any  such  en- 
rollment was  made  in  Judea  during  the  closing  years 
of  Herod's  reign.  Nor  is  it  at  all  probable  that  if 
an  enrollment  had  been  effected  by  Herod,  that  Cy- 
renius after  so  short  an  interval,  would  have  been 
sent  into  Judea  for  the  express  purpose  of  making 
such  an  enrollment.  On  the  theory  that  Herod  had 
at  the  time  of  the  birth,  or  a  short  time  after,  effected 
the  enrollment,  it  would  be  altogether  unaccountable 
that  a  monarch  so  quick  witted  and  so  deeply  inter- 
ested, should,  when  the  Magi'  came  with  their  start- 
ling inquiry,  have  failed  at  once,  to  have  recourse  to 
the  Registrar,  or  the  record  where  the  name  and 
dwelling  place  of  any  who  claimed  to  be  of  the  house 
and  lineage  of  David,  would  have  most  certainly 
been  found.  The  non-existence  of  any  such  record, 
only  can  account  for  the  entire  absence  of  any  refer- 
ence to  it  by  priest  or  scribe,  Sanhedrin  or  king. 

It  remains  only  to  be  said  that  by  the  correction 
of  the  mistaken  interpretation  which  has  come  down 
to  us  from  the  Christian  Fathers,  the  necessity  of  de- 
pendence upon  methods  that  are  conjectural,  com- 
plicated,  unsatisfactory,   vaguely  uncertain,   at  the 


50        The  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke. 

best  incomplete,  on  which  to  build  up  or  retain  our 
confidence  in  the  integrity  and  historic  faithfulness 
of  this  gospel,  is  removed.  The  removal  comes  to 
us  as  a  relief  at  a  time  when  this  faith  is  needed  as 
never  before.  That  this  elimination  of  Cyrenius 
and  a  true  interpretation  of  the  true  text  has,  or  may 
not  have,  heretofore,  been  satisfactorily  made, 
simply  seems  to  indicate,  that  when  emergencies 
arise,  He,  whose  word  cannot  fail  or  be  broken, 
meets  the  emergencies  in  His  own  way,  at  times  by 
obscure  instruments,  and  by  whomsoever  He  wills, 
— But  meets  them. 

Note. — All  reference  has  been  omitted  to  the 
recently  discovered  inscriptions  found  at  Tivoli  and 
Venice,  which  are  conjectured  to  have  some  bearing 
upon  this  case  of  Cyrenius.  This  omission  must 
not  be  construed  as  having  occurred  because  they 
have  been  overlooked  or  not  been  carefully  consid- 
ered, but  simply  because  they  neither  add  to,  nor  de- 
tract from,  the  result  obtained  by  the  method  pur- 
sued herein,  in  solving  the  problems  on  hand.  If, 
however,  these  inscriptions  are  to  be  treated  as  gen- 
uine "Antiques,"  of  the  closing  years  of  Augustus, 
the  campaign  or  rather  raid  against  the  Homona- 
denses  referred  to  by  Tacitus,  must  be  taken  as  an 
incident  made  necessary,  doubtless,  by  the  resistance 
to  his  subordinates  in  carrying  into  effect  the  Ecu- 
menical enrollment  as  described  by  Josephus  and 
referred  to  by  Luke  as  going  on  in  the  interim  from 
A.  D.  5  or  6  to  ii.  At  an  earlier  period  their  in- 
subordination had  been  suppressed  by  the  joint  co- 


The  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke.        51 

operation  of  the  Syrian  troops  and  Archelaus,  king 
of  Cappadocia.  Some  years  later,  as  reported  by 
Mommsen,  Cyrenius  "cut  off  their  supplies  and 
compelled  them  [the  Homonadenses]  to  submit,  en 
masse.  Whereupon  they  were  distributed  to  the 
surrounding  townships,  and  their  former  territory 
was  laid  waste/'  (Vol.  I,  p.  364).  This  exploita- 
tion at  the  head  of  his  legions,  suddenly,  unscrupu- 
lously, sweeping  down  upon  the  rebellious  people 
and  their  land,  quickly  and  ruthlessly  having  accom- 
plished its  purpose,  virtually  placed  Cappadocia  and 
its  helpless  king  in  the  hands  of  Augustus,  after  the 
king's  death,  to  be  made  by  Tiberius  into  a  Roman 
province. 

For  this  success,  Cyrenius  was  awarded  the  or- 
namenta,  and  other  adjuncts  of  a  triumph,  not  a 
Triumph — this,  since  about  B.  C.  25,  not  having 
been  granted  to  any  but  members  of  the  imperial 
family.  This  limitation  itself  therefore  points  to  a  late 
year  in  his  reign,  and  indicates  that  the  conquest 
cannot  be  referred  to  date  much  earlier  than  A.  D. 
10.  In  A.  D.  11  Silanus  superseded  Cyrenius  in 
the  government  of  Syria,  who  passing  into  obloquy, 
in  obscurity  survived  Augustus  and  died  in  A.  D.  21. 


52        The  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke. 

The  Account  of  the  Wise  Men,  Their  Visit  to 

the  Christ,  Their  Return  and  the  Flight 

to  Egypt  and  Return  to  Nazareth  of 

the  Davidic  Family. 

As  allied  to  the  foregoing,  and  subservient  to  the 
same  general  result  of  the  credibility  of  Matthew 
and  Luke,  the  following  is  thereunto  appended,  and 
may  serve  to  offset  Renan's  assertion  that  Jesus  was 
born  at  Nazareth ;  and  also  the  assertion  of  Dean  Al- 
ford  and  others,  that  these  gospels  are  utterly  irrec- 
oncilable for  the  period  of  the  "infancy." 

In  the  consulship  of  Calvinus  and  Pollio,  A.  U.  C. 
714,  Herod  was  made  king  of  the  Jews  by  the  Rom- 
an Senate.  (Jos.  Ant  B.  14,  C.  14,  §  5.)  The 
statement  that  he  reigned  thirty-seven  years  there- 
after must  be  taken  in  the  sense  that  is  usual  in  such 
expressions,  which  count  a  part  at  the  beginning  or 
ending  of  a  reign  as  a  full  year,  and  in  our  enumer- 
ation would  therefore  indicate  that  he  died  in  his 
thirty-seventh  year's  reign.     A.  U.  C.  750 :  B.  C.  4. 

A  chronological  synopsis  of  the  evangelists'  story 
from  the  birth  of  Jesus  up  to  the  return  from  Egypt 
to  Nazareth,  may  show  how  naturally  the  gospel 
history  harmonizes  with  facts  known  from  other 
sources.  Assuming  for  the  sake  of  defmiteness  that 
Jesus  was  born  December  25th,  A.  U.  C.  749,  B.  C. 
5,  the  events  may  be  arranged  thus : 

At  Bethlehem  occurred  A.  U.  C.  749,  B.  C.  5,  the 
birth ;  during  the  first  week  after  the  birth  we  place 
the  visit  of  the  Shepherds,  and  on  January  2nd,  750 
B.  C.  4,  the  Circumcision.      Forty  days  after  the 


The  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke.        53 

birth,  say  February  2nd,  at  Jerusalem  in  the  temple, 
Mary  presented  her  offering  for  ceremonial  puri- 
fication; after  which  they  returned  to  Nazareth, 
which  they  might  reach  say  February  13th. 

Meantime,  according  to  Matthew's  record,  occur- 
red the  arrival  at  Jerusalem  of  certain  "wise  men" 
(Magi)  who,  at  their  home  in  the  East  had  been 
attracted  by  the  appearance  of  a  star,  which  in  some 
way,  perhaps,  somewhat  after  the  manner  of  the  vi- 
sion to  the  shepherds,  had  been  identified  with  the 
expectation  of  the  coming  of  the  "new  born  King  of 
the  Jews."  If  the  appearance  to  them  was  simul- 
taneous with  that  to  the  shepherds,  and  they  had  at 
once  started  on  their  journey,  lightly  equipped,  they 
might  easily  reach  Jerusalem  in,  say  forty-five  days, 
from  any  place  which  has  been  suggested  as  their 
own  country.  Naturally  assuming  that  the  king 
would  be  born  in  the  capital,  they  needed  no  special 
guide,  but  had  only  to  follow  the  often  travelled 
road  to  find  their  goal.  To  Herod,  their  inquiry. 
"Where  is  he  that  is  born  'King  of  the  Jews/  "  and 
the  statement  that  "they  had  seen  his  star  in  the 
East,"  with  the  declaration  of  their  purpose;  "and 
are  come  to  worship  him;"  must  have  had,  especi- 
ally at  this  juncture,  a  very  startling  and  disquiet- 
ing effect.  For  he  had  just  been  confronted  by  a 
"sect  of  the  Pharisees,"  "who  were  believed  to  have 
the  foreknowledge  of  things  to  come  by  divine  in- 
spiration," "and  who  foretold  how  God  had  decreed 
that  Herod's  government  should  cease,  and  his  pos- 
terity should  be  deprived  of  it."     He  had  just  slain 


54        The  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke. 

"such  of  the  Pharisees  as  were  principally  accused," 
and  all  those  of  his  own  family  who  had  consented 
to  what  the  Pharisees  had  foretold."  (Jos.  Ant.  B. 
iy,  C.  2,  §4.)  It  was  fortunate  for  these  visitors 
that  Herod,  having  learned  from  the  Chief  Priests 
and  Scribes,  that  Bethlehem  was  the  predicted  place 
of  the  expected  king's  birth,  had  concluded  to 
use  them  to  make  sure  of  his  prey.  It  is,  certain- 
ly, here  in  evidence  that  no  registration  had  been 
at  this  time  made,  or  his  first  move  would  doubtless 
have  been  to  detain  the  Magi,  and  examine  the  list 
for  the  name  of  any  one  claiming  descent  from  Da- 
vid,— or  of  having  a  child  born  there. 

He,  therefore,  received  them  most  graciously,  and 
instructing  them  to  go  to  Bethlehem,  he  exacted  a 
promise  to  bring  back  to  him  "word  that  he  might 
go  to  worship  him."  Thus  instructed  they  set  forth 
on  the  evening  of  the  day  of  their  arrival  at  Jeru- 
salem, intending  to  go  to  Bethlehem,  which  Mat- 
thew does  not  say  they  ever  reached,  but  enters  the 
record  that  on  emerging  from  the  city,  they  rejoiced 
at  seeing  "the  star  which  they  had  seen  in  the  East," 
evidently  a  luminary  of  a  special  and  distinctly  rec- 
ognizable form  and  sufficiently  low  and  near  and  of 
movement  which  could  be  followed.  They  were 
thus  assured  that  they  now  had  what  was  absolutely 
necessary, — a  sure  guide  to  the  place  where  the  new- 
born King  would  be  found.  They  certainly  needed 
no  special  guide  for  the  six  miles  southward  on  the 
public  road  to  Bethlehem,  no  more  than  they  had 
needed  it  on  their  way  by  the  regular  road  to  Jeru- 


The  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke.        55 

salem.  They,  therefore,  unhesitatingly  followed 
the  familiarly  recognized  luminary,  with  great  re- 
joicing, ' 'which  went  before  them  (northwardly) 
until  it  stood  over  (the  house),  where  the  young 
child  was."  This  guidance  precluded  any  public  in- 
quiry at  Nazareth  and  cast  over  the  visit  the  veil  of 
entire  privacy. 

Meantime  on  the  absence  of  any  word  from  them 
or  trace  of  their  movements,  and  being  thus  thwart- 
ed in  his  scheme  by  the  Magi,  Herod  vented  his  fury, 
and  avenged  the  contemptuous  insult  and  mockery 
of  him,  upon  the  children  of  "two  years  and  under," 
in  the  vicinage  of  the  Zuphite  Hills  in  the  allotment 
of  Benjamin,  the  son  of  Rachel,  where  she  was 
buried;  and  this  cruel  murder  by  order  of  the  king 
recalls  to  Matthew,  the  dissuasive  of  Jeremiah,  ad- 
dressed to  her  posterity,  the  Benjaminites,  against 
their  contemplated  flight  into  Egypt  after  the  tak- 
ing of  Jerusalem,  and  their  dispersion.  Their  fate 
was  first  formulated  as  a  lamentation  of  their 
Mother  Rachel  foreshadowing  thus  their  destruc- 
tion ;  but  when  the  despondent  remnant,  had  reached 
beyond  Bethlehem  the  Ramah  or  higher  of  the  two 
hill  tops  of  the  "double  hill  tops"  of  the  ridge  where 
was  the  Caravanserai  of  Chimham,  the  son  of  Bar- 
zillai  in  Ramah,  the  Lord's  prophet  still  more  clearly 
expressed  their  doom  of  death ;  if  in  defiance  of  Je- 
hovah they  under  Johanen's  lead  took  refuge  in 
Egypt.  Despite  this  warning,  from  this  place  on 
the  Zuphite  ridge,  the  Ramah  of  Samuel,  and 
David's  refuge    "nigh  unto  Bethlehem,"    they  took 


56        The  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke. 

their  departure,  and  in  Egypt  met  the  miserable  fate 
predicted. 

To  this  Herodian  slaughter  of  the  innocents  of  her 
race  and  vicinage  Matthew  parallels  the  reminiscence 
of  the  Wailing  of  the  Mother  over  the  earlier  dis- 
aster. 

Having  reached  Nazareth  they  quietly  entered  the 
house,  and  during  the  day  rendered  their  homage  to 
the  newborn  King,  and  presented  their  gifts.  That 
night  they  were  warned  of  God  in  a  dream  not  to 
return  to  Herod  and  they  then  departed  to  their  own 
country  by  another  way ;  doubtless,  crossing  the  Jor- 
dan, south  of  the  sea  of  Galilee  and,  passing  east- 
ward through  Perea,  hastened  to  their  distant  home. 
There  was  urgent  need  for  haste  as  was  evinced  by 
the  divinely  interposed  dreams.  For,  meanwhile, 
the  occurrences  in  the  Temple  would  be  common 
talk  "among  those  that  looked  for  redemption  in 
Jerusalem,"  and  this  reaching  the  king  would  fur- 
nish a  much  desired  clue  to  their  home.  Not,  how- 
ever, until  the  departure  of  the  Magi,  and  therefore, 
unknown  to  them,  was  Joseph  warned  to  flee  into 
Egypt,  and  waiting  only  for  the  night,  the  Davidic 
family  with  all  secrecy  began  their  flight,  and  cross- 
ing the  Jordan,  passed  southward  on  its  eastern  side, 
through  Perea,  and  rounding  the  Dead  Sea  journey- 
ed southwestwardly  into  Egypt,  their  destination,  as 
directed  in  their  dream.  Thus  they  escaped  the 
danger  of  either  remaining  within,  or  passing  down 
through  the  west-side  dominion  of  the  exasperated 
king,  and  yet  had  time  enough  to  reach  a  place  of 


The  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke.        57 

safety.  Of  the  death  of  Herod,  he  was  informed 
by  an  angel  in  a  dream,  and  was  also  directed  "to 
go  with  the  young  child  and  his  mother  to  the  land 
of  Israel."  This  was,  strictly  the  name  applied  to 
the  northern  part  of  what  had  been  included  up  to 
the  death  of  Herod  in  the  kingdom  of  Judea,  and 
was  known  as  Galilee  and  Samaria.  Intending, 
however,  to  pass  through  Judea,  when  he  came  to 
its  border,  he  learned  that  Archelaus  was  reigning 
over  Judea  in  the  place  of  his  father,  Herod,  and 
was  afraid,  therefore,  to  go  that  way  and  so  "turned 
aside  to  the  parts  of  Galilee/'  a  singularly  terse,  but 
accurate  reference  to  the  changes  wrought  in  this 
short  time;  and  significantly  confirming  the  date  of 
the  return  as  immediately  after  Herod's  death :  who 
by  his  will  had  directed  that  Samaria  and  Galilee 
and  Perea  should  be  united  under  the  Tetrarchy  of 
his  son  Herod  Antipas,  who  contemporaneously 
with  Archelaus  in  Judea,  entered  upon  the  govern- 
ment of  the  territory  thus  consolidated.  This  note 
of  change  also  indicates  that  the  returning  family 
pursued  the  route  around  the  southern  and  eastern 
shores  of  the  Dead  Sea,  through  Perea  as  on  their 
flight,  on  the  east-side  of  the  sea  and  the  Jordan  un- 
til they  arrived  again  at  their  own  city  of  Nazareth. 
Counting  the  death  of  Herod  as  not  later  than  the 
first  week  in  April  gives  Joseph  some  six  weeks  for 
his  journey  to,  and  his  residence  in,  Egypt,  and  his 
return  to  Nazareth.  The  prompt  notice  of  Herod's 
death,  the  urgent  directions  given  and  the  route 
taken  and  diligently  pursued,  would  certainly  bring 


58        The  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke. 

the  entire  family  to  their  home,  in  the  "land  of  Isra- 
el," about  May  of  A.  U.  C.  750,  B.  C.  4. 

Thus  we  have  the  whole  of  these  events,  without 
jostling,  or  crowding,  and  without  departing  at  all 
from  the  most  reasonable  probabilities,  comprised 
within  the  period  during  which  they  have  usually 
been  conceived  to  have  occurred,  and  within  which, 
if  at  all,  it  would  seem  that  they  must  have  taken 
place. 


SYNOPTICAL  NOTE 

It  is  claimed  for  this  treatise,  among  other  items: 

1st.  That  in  it  is  first  brought  out  the  force  of  Luke's  descriptive 
term;  "apographesthai  pasan  ten  oikoumenen;"  (to  be  enrolled 
the  entire  habitable  [part  of  the]  world  then  under  Roman  jurisdic- 
tion) ,  it  being  the  first  to  point  out  its  decisive  influence  and  im- 
portance in  the  defence  of  the  structure,  the  form  and  interpretation 
of  the  text.  The  vital  and  controlling  influence  of  its  Roman  world- 
wide expansion,  and  its  use  for  these  purposes  has  been  overlooked; 
its  very  presence  almost  ignored;  and  in  this  treatise,  only,  has  it 
been  successfully  used  for  the  solution  or  removal  of  the  difficulties, 
which,  for  the  most  part,  owe  their  origin  and  persistent  continuity 
to  the  uncritical  neglect  of  this  emphatic,  descriptive,  limitative 
word,  ten  oikoumenen. 

2nd.  That  it  having  been  found,  that  Augustus  had  begun  a 
series  of  Roman  world-wide  enrollments  of  persons  and  estates,  at 
intervals,  or  in  a  cycle  of,  twenty  years  recurrence;  and  several  of 
these  having  been  traced  and  the  dates  verified  as  far  back  as  B.  C. 
5,  A.  U.  C.  749;  but  none  of  this  kind  of  an  earlier  date  having 
been  found,  the  natural  conclusion  is,  that  this  decree  of  Augustus 
dated  B.  C.  5,  was  properly  designated  by  Luke,  as  the  first  of  that 
first  series  of  ecumenical  enrollments  established  by  Augustus, 
and  continued  by  his  successors. 

3rd.  Taking,  therefore,  the  definitely  determined  B.  C.  5,  A.  U. 
C.  749,  as  the  year  when  the  first  of  the  series  or  cycle  of  twenty 
years'  enrollments  of  persons  or  estates  began,  and  that  Herod  died 
early  in  April  B.  C.  4,  A.  U.  C.  750;  also,  gathering  from  Luke 
that  the  Augustan  dogma  or  decree  was  the  occasion  of  the  journey 
to,  and  the  sojourn  at  Bethlehem,  where  both  Gospels  declare  that 
prior  to  the  death  of  Herod,  Jesus  was  born;  it  would  seem  necess- 
arily to  follow,  that,  the  birth  must  have  occurred  at  a  date  some- 
where between  the  beginning  and  ending  of  these  fifteen  months. 
But  the  then  existing  conditions,  as  we  have  seen,  greatly  discour- 
age the  acceptance  of  a  date  earlier  than  the  later  months;  indeed, 
than  the  latest  month  of  B.  C.  5;  and  the  itinerary  of  the  events 
subsequently  to  the  birth,  points  strongly,  if  not  indefeasibly,  to  a 
date  late  in  the  last  month  of  B.  C.  5,  A.  U.  C.  749,  as  the  true  year 
and  month,  when  the  HOLY  CHRIST-CHILD  "WAS  BORN 
IN  BETHLEHEM  OF  JUDEA." 


Baptism  For  The  Dead. 

As  it  seems  at  this  day,  the  practice  of  baptizing 
for  the  dead  is  still  continued,  that  is,  that  living 
persons  receive  baptism  or  immersion  in  or  with 
water,  with  the  understanding  that  a  person  already 
dead,  will  thereby  receive  the  same  benefit  as  he 
would  have  realized,  had  it  been  administered  dur- 
ing his  natural  life-time,  it  may  be  well,  therefore, 
to  consider  the  hitherto  inexplicable,  or  rather,  the 
unsatisfactorily  answered  challenge  of  the  expres- 
sion in  i  Cor.  xv,  29:  "What  shall  they  do  which 
are  baptised  for  the  dead,  if  the  dead  rise  not  at  all  ? 
Why  are  they  then  baptized  for  the  dead?" 

For  an  answer,  it  is  thought,  some  material  may 
be  found  in  the  three  subsequent  collateral  verses. 

Unquestionably,  the  subject  matter  under  consid- 
eration by  the  writer  of  the  chapter  is  "the  resur- 
rection of  the  dead"  as  claimed  and  taught  by  Jesus 
and  his  followers,  as  well,  the  resurrection  of  Jesus 
himself,  as  of  all  that  had  died,  or  that  should,  die  in 
the  belief  of  a  resurrection  at  the  last  day;  and  who 
in  the  acceptance  of  it,  and  their  enrollment  as  co- 
workers with  the  apostles,  were  subject  to  the  same 
annoyances  that  fell  to  the  members  of  the  early 
Church.  This  doctrine  was  by  none  more  strenu- 
ously held  nor  persistently  preached  than  by  Saul 
of  Tarsus. 

Supplying  this  subject  after  the  preposition, 
which  significantly  enough  is  used  in  regimen  with 


60  Baptism  of  the  Dead. 

the  accusative  as  well  as  with  the  genitive;  "Huper 
ten  anastasin  ton  nekron"  we  then  translate  thus: 
"What  shall  they  do  who  themselves  are  baptized 
on  account  of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  if  the 
dead  rise  not  at  all?"  i.  e.,  What  shall  they  do  for 
themselves  or  for  others,  who,  influenced  by  their 
teaching  and  their  belief  of  this  doctrine,  assume 
the  obligations  and  endure  the  consequences  of  their 
identification  with  the  Christian  organization? 

With  the  interposition  of  this  question,  resuming 
his  argument  in  opposition  to  the  doubts  and  ob- 
jections alleged  against  the  resurrection  of  Christ 
as  the  "first  fruits"  of  the  general  resurrec- 
tion "at  the  last  day;"  he  follows  it  up  with  illus- 
trative references  of  what  he  had  done  and  suffered 
on  account  of  his  belief  and  his  preaching  of  this 
doctrine,  both  as  to  Christ  and  the  general  resurrec- 
tion; simply  emphasizing  his  question  by  its  repe- 
tition: "Why  are  they,  then,  baptized  for  them?" 
[or  on  their  account?]  But  to  this  he  adds  the 
personal  and  pertinent  inquiry,  "And  why  stand 
we"  [myself  and  others,]  "in  jeopardy  every 
hour?"  (i.  e.,  on  account  of  the  same  doctrine  and 
teaching)  ;  thus  strongly  attesting  his  own  unshaken 
confidence  in  its  truth.  "I  protest  by  your  rejoic- 
ing which  I  have  in  Christ  Jesus,  I  die  daily,"  [i.  e., 
I  protest  by  the  rejoicing,  as  to  you,  which  I 
have  in  Christ  Jesus,  I  am  every  day  exposed  to 
death.]  "If  after  the  manner  of  men,  I  have  fought 
with  beasts  at  Ephesus,  what  advantageth  it  to  me, 
if  the  dead  rise  not?" 


Baptism  for  the  Dead.  61 

He  thus  seems  to  contrast  his  future  with  that  of 
those  who  are  contestants  in  the  arena,  or  the  Olym- 
pic games.  These  during  their  toil  in  training  and 
fighting  or  running,  etc.,  are  absolutely  assured  that 
there  will  be  an  advantage  to  the  successful  competi- 
tor. In  the  arena,  victory  will  save  life  and  give  to 
him  great  glory;  in  the  race  each  has  the  same  op- 
portunity of  winning  the  prize  and  the  crown  which 
is  absolutely  sure  to  be  awarded  to  the  one  who  first 
reaches  the  goal.  Each  may,  therefore,  count  all 
his  toil  and  hardships  as  nothing,  compared  with 
the  award  and  glory, — the  possible  results  of  his 
victory  and  success.  But  to  those  who  have  staked 
their  interests  and  expectations, — their  all, — upon 
the  resurrection  of  Jesus  as  a  fact,  and  upon  the 
assurance  derived  from  Him  of  their  own  ultimate 
resurrection  and  without  doubting  or  hesitation 
have  urged  others  to  enter  upon  their  life,  assume 
its  responsibilities,  endure  its  disabilities  and  suffer- 
ings, there  is  no  possible  compensation,  "if  the  dead 
rise  not."  In  that  case  there  is  nothing  of  value 
left  as  an  inheritance  to  take  the  place  of  that  which 
they  had  set  before  them.  For  in  Paul's  estima- 
tion, the  things  for  which  other  men  do  strive  are 
nothing  to  him,  nor  to  all  those  who  had  cherished 
with  longing  heart  the  glory  of  the  anastasis.  "I 
fight  with  beasts  at  Ephesus,"  why?  Expressly  to 
attest  the  actuality  of  my  belief  in  this  doctrine, 
and  am  subjected  to  such  ordeal  in  consequence  of 
the  fiendish  opposition  which  its  preaching  arouses 
in  the  hearts  of  the  unbelievers.     But  what  profit 


62  Baptism  of  the  Dead. 

or  advantage  shall  ever  accrue  to  me,  if  what  I  con- 
tend for  shall  never  be  realized?  If  there  is  to  be 
no  resurrection,  it  had  been  better  for  us  to  have 
cried :  "Let  us  eat  and  drink,  for  tomorrow  we  die." 
Yet,  undismayed  by  threats,  sufferings  or  danger, 
he  cries  to  his  followers :  "Let  not  yourselves  be  de- 
ceived, evil  communications  corrupt  good  manners/' 
— deprave  good  principles  or  truths — "Awake  to 
righteousness," — rightly  arouse  yourselves  out  of 
your  delusions, — "and  sin  not."  Make  no  mistakes 
— no  compromises  with  unbelievers. 

So  Paul,  and  all  the  preachers  of  his  day,  despite 
all  these  dangers  and  sufferings,  constantly  insisted 
upon  and  fearlessly  proclaimed  these  fundamental 
truths  to  both  Jews  and  Greeks.  So,  too,  undaunt- 
ed by  the  well  known  and  expected  consequent  suf- 
ferings of  their  future  earth-life,  men  and  women 
were  being  discipled,  and  being  received  by  baptism 
into  the  communion  and  fellowship  "of  the  king- 
dom which  is  not  of  this  world,"  on  the  profession 
of  their  faith  in  the  teaching,  the  ultimate  realiza- 
tion of  their  own  anastasis  and  the  resurrection  of 
all  those  who  with  like  faith  had  taken  to  them- 
selves "to  endure  as  seeing  the  invisible,"  whatever 
might  befall  them,  so  they  "might  prove  the  power 
of  the  resurrection  of  their  risen  Lord." 

But  the  introduction  of  the  subject  of  discussion 
between  the  preposition  and  the  objects  upon  whom 
the  power  to  raise  the  dead  is  to  be  exercised,  seems 
to  raise  the  question  as  to  what  is  to  be  understood 
by  the  baptismal  terms  or  term  as  there  used.     If 


Baptism  for  the  Dead.  63 

used  in  its  ordinary  or  ritual  application,  it  seems 
difficult  if  not  almost  impossible  to  account  for,  or 
to  give  a  satisfactory  reason  for  the  recital,  in  the 
immediate  continuation  of  his  argument,  of  the  per- 
secution and  sufferings  which  were  and  must  be 
his  lot  whilst  persisting  in  his  adherence  to  the 
teachings  of  the  Christ. 

It  seems,  therefore,  a  necessity  to  seek  for  a  dif- 
erent  application  of  the  verb  than  that  of  its  more 
common  or  ritual  use.  The  connection  of  the  sub- 
sequent-context, indeed,  seems  to  point  in  another  di- 
rection, and  strongly  suggests  the  meaning  or  usage 
in  which  it  first  appears  in  Christ's  own  employment 
of  it  prior  to  his  putting  it  in  his  commission  to  the 
apostolic  office. 

It  is  somewhat  significant  that  to  the  burden  of 
his  preaching :  "Repent  ye,  for  the  kingdom  of  God 
is  at  hand,"  there  is  no  instance  of  his  having  fol- 
lowed the  example  of  John  by  calling  his  hearers  to 
"come  and  be  baptized."  That  many  of  his  hearers 
did  come  and  were  baptized  is  certain,  but  not  by 
him,  but  by  his  disciples,  who  either  with  or  without 
his  authority  followed  the  practice  of  his  forerun- 
ner, who  had  distinctly  announced  that  the  Christ 
would  baptize  "with  the  Holy  Ghost." 

Baptism  is  first  referred  to  by  our  Lord  in  his 
conversation  with  the  mother  of  Zebedee's  children 
when  she  asked  that  one  of  her  two  sons  might  sit 
on  his  right  hand,  and  the  other  on  his  left  in  his 
kingdom.  To  the  sons  he  said:  "Are  ye  able  to 
drink  of  the  cup  that  I  shall  drink  of,  and  to  be  bap- 


64  Baptism  of  the  Dead. 

tized  with  the  baptism  that  I  am  baptized  with? 
They  say  unto  him,  we  are  able.  And  he  saith  unto 
them,  ye  shall  indeed,  drink  of  my  cup  and  be  bap- 
tised with  the  baptism  that  I  am  baptized  with." 
(Matt.  xx:22,  23.  So  Mark,  x:38,  39.)  A  usage 
of  a  similar  or  same  import  is  found  in  Luke  xii  :5o. 

To  James  and  John  he  put  the  question  in  the 
most  unmistakable  form.  To  them  it  must  have 
had  some  more  or  less  well  understood  meaning. 
The  very  fact  that  the  word  was  used  for  the  pur- 
pose of  testing  their  fidelity  and  courage,  indicates 
that  a  meaning  such  as  is  portended  by  its  use,  and 
interpreted  by  the  sequel  of  their  lives,  was  not  al- 
together new  nor  unusual,  but  rather  that  it  was 
current  and  characteristic  of  their  day.  Neither  of 
them  when  they  gave  their  pledge  could  possibly 
have  understood  all  that  was  implied  therein;  but 
they  must  have  known  that  it  bound  them  to  a  life 
of  absolute  and  unreserved  devotion  and  consecra- 
tion to  him  as  their  leader  and  head,  a  meaning 
which  always  was  and  still  continues  to  be  the  cen- 
tral thought  in  the  gospel  ordinance  of  baptism, 
yet  in  the  crisis  of  their  Master's  baptism  these  two 
unwaveringly  kept  their  troth. 

Not  until  Gethsemane  in  their  presence  had 
borne  witness  to  the  agonizing  conflict  of  the  man 
of  sorrows,  not  until  shuddering  Calvary  had  been 
burdened  by  his  cross,  had  heard  his  last  piteous 
cry  and  was  relieved  of  its  crucified  victim,  not  un- 
til he  had  passed  into  the  grave  and  dwelt  among 
the  dead,  not  until  the  vacant  tomb,  the  terrified 


Baptism  for  the  Dead.  65 

guard,  the  love-lorn  weeping  Mary  had  testified  that 
he  had  risen,  not  until  he  had  ascended  from  their 
very  presence  up  on  high,  not  until  after  Pentecost 
and  Stephen's  cruel  martyrdom,  did  they  have  even 
an  intelligent  approximation  of  that  to  which  their 
words,  "WE  ARE  ABLE,"  had  irrevocably  bound 
them;  nor,  on  the  other  hand,  had  they,  then,  a 
clear  and  complete  understanding  of  what  awaited 
them,  if  they  "endured  to  the  end."  The  doctrine 
of  the  resurrection  is  truly  common  to  Judaism  and 
Christianity,  but  not  until  Christ  had  further  illus- 
trated it,  and  given  himself  as  its  "first  fruit"  did  it 
have  the  power  and  attractive  characteristics  which 
it  had  in  Paul's  day.  Yet  neither  the  sacrifice  made 
nor  the  final  results  were  minified  nor  unduly  ex- 
alted. 

It  is  in  perfect  harmony  with  Paul's  attributing 
his  sufferings,  his  being  hourly  jeopardized,  his 
daily  exposure  to  death,  to  the  preaching  and  the 
persistent  maintaining  cf  this  peculiarly  character- 
istic doctrine  of  the  gospel  system,  that  he  should 
thus  apply  in  Christ's  own  meaning  of  consecration 
to  suffering  and  sacrificial  devotion,  the  baptism  of 
those  who  had  come  and  were  still  coming,  and  in 
the  full  faith  in  the  actual  resurrection  of  the  once 
dead  Christ,  and  the  final  resurrection  in  glory  of 
all  who  in  him  trusted,  and  in  the  faith  died,  ac- 
cepting the  test,  thus  saying  in  effect:  "We  are 
able;"  to  endure  all  that  is  meant  in  this  pledge :  what 
shall  they  do  if  we  temporize  and  draw  back  ?  Must 
they  then,  renounce  the  faith  and  go  back  to  "the 


66  Baptism  of  the  Dead. 

beggarly  elements"  of  heathenism,  or  Judaism? 
What  will  their  sufferings,  endured  in  faith  based 
on  our  teachings,  profit  them  if  there  be  no  resurrec- 
tion past  or  future?  No  more  pertinent  question 
can  be  asked  at  this  hour,  than  that  which  at  the 
culmination  of  Egyptian,  Greek  and  Roman  civil- 
ization and  Jewish  obduracy,  faced  the  great  apostle 
when  writing  this  epistle  to  the  most  cultured  peo- 
ple of  his  day. 

On  the  truth  of  this  doctrine,  the  authenticity  of 
the  statements  of  the  gospels,  the  actuality  of  the 
first  resurrection,  is  suspended  the  hope  of  mankind 
for  salvation,  and  the  final  consolidation  of  "the 
kingdoms  of  this  world"  into  the  "kingdom  of  Je- 
hovah-Christ." 

With  the  application  of  Christ's  usage  and  mean- 
ing of  the  ritual  term  herein  employed,  the  difficulty 
of  interpretation  would  seem  to  disappear,  and  the 
verses  of  this  entire  section  of  the  discussion  be  in 
entire  harmony. 

"If  in  this  life  only  we  have  hope  in  Christ,  then 
we,"  Paul  and  all  others  of  like  faith  "are  of  all  men 
most  to  be  pitied."  In  that  case  it  were  indeed, 
preferable  to  go  before  men  with  the  exhortation, 
"Let  us  eat  and  drink,  for  tomorrow  we  die." 
But  apostolic  heroism  suffers  no  reaction  or  abate- 
ment. Cautionary  exhortation  and  warning  may 
do  what  is  needed.  "Be  not  deceived,"  neither  de- 
ceive yourselves  nor  let  others  deceive  you.  "Evil 
communications;"  —  associations  —  companion- 
ships,    "corrupt     good    manners;" — deprave    good 


Baptism  for  the  Dead.  67 

principles.  "Awake  to  righteousness ;" — be  alert, 
wakeful,  rightly  arouse  yourselves, — "and  sin  not;" 
make  no  sinful  mistakes  through  inactivity,  indif- 
ference or  neglect  to  be  on  your  guard.  "For  some 
[among  you]  have  not  the  knowledge  of  God."  Ig- 
norance of  God  is  their  special  characteristic,  yet 
they  have  influence  among  you.  This  I  talk  of  to 
your  discredit,  your  shame. 


NOTE 

As  collateral  evidence  of  the  accuracy  of  the  in- 
terpretation above  given,  we  may  advert  to  Paul's 
usage  of  the  baptismal  terms  elsewhere.  As  pre- 
liminary to  our  purpose  it  may  be  observed  that  the 
preposition  'eis  used  in  connection  therewith  seems 
improperly  rendered  by  "into,"  its  true  meaning  in 
such  connections  seeming  to  be  more  properly  ex- 
pressed by  our  preposition  "to."  In  the  course  of 
an  examination  of  the  meaning  of  the  words  or 
phrase;  "eis  ten  Jordanen"  every  occurrence  of  the 
phrase  in  the  New  Testament  and  Septuagint  was 
brought  into  view.  In  the  last  case  the  actors  were 
soldiers  who  "leaped  into  the  Jordan,"  but  the  'eis 
still  retained  its  proper  meaning  "to,"  the  verb 
"leaped,"  being  compounded  with  the  preposition, 
"en,"  and  this  combined  with  the  'eis  (to)  made 
"into."  In  every  such  case,  therefore,  the  Greek  is 
properly  rendered  by  the  English  "to." 

Turning  now  to  the  passages  in  which  Paul  uses 
the  baptismal  terms,  it  will  be  found  that  uniformly 


68  Baptism  of  the  Dead. 

the  metaphorical  meaning  given  them  by  Christ, 
namely,  that  of  "consecration,"  "setting  apart,"  to 
a  life  of  suffering,  privation  or  death  may  properly 
express  his  meaning.  Thus :  Rom.  vi :  3 ;  Gal.  iii :  27, 
"were  baptized  into  (consecrated  to)  Jesus;"  I  Cor. 
1:13,  "were  ye  baptized  in  [consecrated  to]  the 
name,  etc.,  x  :2,  were  baptized  unto  [consecrated  to] 
Moses;  xii:i3  "baptized  into  one  body,"  [consecrat- 
ed to  one  body]  may  all  be  rendered  and  understood 
according  to  Christ's  usage,  as  consecrated  or  set 
apart,  devoted,  with  the  idea  of  exclusiveness  to  the 
life  and  the  endurance  and  faithfulness  to  what  is 
named,  e.  g.,  to  Christ,  to  Moses,  to  the  undivided 
unit, — the  Church. 


Date  Due 

rl 

f***G«*g3S2t 

wm 

-v***^^       ^ 

$ 

BS2569.4.H81 

The  gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke;  a 

.^.'.n.c:.!t;°n.Tt,eol?9ical  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00013  5543 


I 


i 

■r 

BV 

111111 


I 


in 


u 


